Tiny homes, tiny wood stoves: photos, ideas and designs

Updated: Nov. 2020 - With the advent of the tiny home movement, there is a rise in interest in tiny stoves to heat them.  Tiny stoves have always been around, mainly driven by the sailboat industry, but also for yurts and small homes.  Small stoves are often thought of as stoves with a firebox of less than one cubic foot.  But some are much smaller than that and may put out no more than 10,000 BTUs.  There will also likely be a growing market for very small pellet stoves, like the Thelin Gnome, as living spaces get smaller and tighter. 

The paradox of heating a small space is that it may not be hard to heat up, but it also gets cold quickly after the stove goes out.  The fireboxes are so small that they cannot hold much fuel.  Often, tiny stoves need to be reloaded every 20 - 60 minutes, depending on the size of the fuel and whether the stove is just getting going or has a decent coal bed.

A few of these stoves are EPA certified, including the Kimberly and Katydid and the Gnome pellet stove.  (But the Kimberly and Katydid will not be certified after May 15, 2020 when EPA standards get stricter.) And the EPA has slowly begun to add firebox size their searchable database, and 69 out of 207 stoves that are 2020 certified have firebox sizes.  The smallest, at half a cubic foot is made by the Danish manufacturer Moreso. If they are designed for boats, vans, trailers or for camping or other non-residential spaces, they should fall outside the EPA's regulations, which only pertain to residential heating. But it is unclear whether they should be certified if they are used as a residential heater.    See our other photo essays on wood stoves styles around the world, wood fired hot tubs and firewood gathering around the world.

To minimize space, tiny stoves can be mounted on the wall. Using wood stoves in boats, vans and tiny homes can pose a great risk of carbon monoxide build up than in larger spaces. Be sure to install a CO detector, store your ashes outside and ensure the draft doesn't reverse back down the chimney.

Tiny stoves are often installed on counters or shelves so that operating and cooking on them is easier.

Yurts are traditionally heated with larger, inefficient stoves, not small, sleek ones like this.  

The 1991 Cape George 36,  "Privateer", is outfitted with the "Little Cod" marine wood stove

112 square foot mobile tiny home, heated by tiny wood stove

Minimalist living inside Mt. Brown Hut, New Zealand

Antique Refurbished Box Stoves

Inside a traditional style "Sheep Wagon" in Idaho

Stove featured in a custom "tiny" house 

This Van found on Vancouver Island, BC spotlights a small stove and split wood

Living low-key in Anchorage, Alaska, this mobile home is outfitted with The Kimberly Stove

"Halibut" by Navigator Stove Works

The "Sardine" wood-burning stove measuring in at 12"x12" doubles as a cook stove 

Swiss man with a wood stove in his 1990 Volvo

The "Sardine" by Navigator Stove Works, seen aboard W. Atkin "Ingrid" in Washington State

The Gnome pellet stove is the smallest pellet stove on the market and claims to run for more than 24 hours on one hopper load of pellets at low heat.

The Viking 30 cookstove is part of a retro line of wood stoves from Sweden.

A small stove in a classic Airstream trailer.

Thanks for reading!  Check out our photo essay on wood stoves from around the world and sign up for our free monthly newsletter here for more ideas on how to heat with wood, pellets, etc.

Coal Heating in the United States

By John Ackerly & Melissa Bollman
Alliance for Green Heat
This paper was prepared for the Warsaw Stove Summit which brought AGH and scores of experts in coal and wood heating from 19 countries to Poland in May 2017.

Summary
The US Census Bureau estimates that approximately 127,000 households used coal as a primary heating fuel in 2015, or about 0.1% of American homes. Residential coal heating dropped rapidly until 2000 and since then has been relatively stable.

More than half of homes using coal heat are concentrated in Pennsylvania and New York, right where it is mined. It appears to be based on cultural traditions and local support for local jobs because its still a very inexpensive way to heat and easy to transport. Most of the United States has no restrictions on coal heating and there have been few attempts to restrict it. Rather, it seems to have gradually died out except in pockets of states where anthracite is mined. Bituminous and sub-bituminous coal is much more widely dispersed but it is used far less than anthracite.

Coal stoves, particularly those fueled with anthracite coal that principally comes form Pennsylvania, typically have less particular matter than wood or possibly even pellet stoves. However, their health impacts may be far worse, as coal often emits high levels of SO2 and oxides from nitrogen.  In addition, coal often has poisonous toxins such as flourine, arsenic, selenium, mercury and lead.  For more on health impacts of coal and wood heating in the US and Europe, we excerpted key parts of a World Health Organization report here.

Who heats with coal and why?

Homes that heat with coal tend to be concentrated near anthracite coal mines and in homes with lower or mid level incomes. In the wealthier and more urban counties of Pennsylvania that are within 100 miles of anthracite mines, virtually no households heat with coal. High use of coal heat does not correlate with high use of wood heat. Both coal and wood are favored by rural, lower-income populations but coal appears to be favored near anthracite mines, and wood is favored in nearby, rural counties, according to data from the US census. The highest percentage of homes heating with coal at the county level is about 13%.

A prominent 2008 New York Times article reported that residential coal heating was on the rise, but rise was modest, and petered out a few years later. That rise corresponded with a major recession from 2007 – 2009 during which rates of wood heat soared far higher than coal. The New York Times also reported that an additional 80,000 homes use coal as a secondary heat source and the US Census reported 104,000 used it as a secondary heat source in 2005. Only 4,000 homes use it to cook with and 22,000 used it to heat domestic hot water in 2005, according to the US Census.

In 2015, the top five states for residential coal heating were Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana. Over 50% of US homes that heat primarily with coal are located in Pennsylvania, where anthracite coal is mined.

The primary benefits of heating with coal, compared to wood, is 1. it burns for longer periods of time, so less reloading is needed and a home can easily stay warm overnight; 2. Like pellets, it can be delivered in bags on pallets by a forklift, and does not need the time consuming splitting, stacking and seasoning that cordwood needs; 3. It is even more inexpensive per BTU (assuming you don’t cut the wood yourself); and 4. It is a very dense fuel, and takes up half the space that the same amount of wood takes, per BTU.

The downside of heating with coal is 1. The odor, which most people find moderately unpleasant; 2. The black dust which is harder to clean than dirt and wood pieces from cordwood; and 3. Its hard to light, requiring most people to start the fire with wood, before switching to coal.

While the above pros and cons are widely agreed upon, other less tangible factors play a role. Coal has increasingly gained a stigma as a dirty, non-renewable fuel, whereas wood is regarded as far more environmentally friendly (even though particulate matter from wood can be equally high). On the other hand, the dwindling economic prospects of coal towns and counties tends to make those populations want to support the fuel to combat what they often see as an unfair bias against coal.

Coal and coal stoves

Coal stoves are either stokers or batch. Stokers automatically feed coal pellets (much like pellet stoves) into the stove, require electricity and only use anthracite. Batch stoves are loaded by hand and can take anthracite or bituminous.

Most coal used for heating in the US is anthracite but anecdotal estimates by experts say that no more than 25% is bituminous, primarily in areas where its abundant.

The EIA stopped collecting data on residential coal consumption in 2008. In 2007, the EIA reported that US residents consumed 353,000 short tons (320,171 metric tons) of coal, which represented only 0.03% of the nation’s annual coal use (1.1 billion short tons or around 1 billion metric tons). The overwhelming majority of course (93%) of US coal is used to generate electricity.

Usually coal is sold in 40 or 50 pound bags or by the ton. Coal may be sold directly to consumers from the mine, a fuel supplier, or a hardware store. Blaschak is one of the largest suppliers of bagged anthracite coal and sold 374,000 tons in 2014. Forty pound bags of anthracite coal (any size) from Pennsylvania usually run $6-$8. A ton of anthracite typically costs between $190 and $210 per ton, before delivery charges (which can increase price to $250-$300). One fuel seller, Central Maine Coal, sells about 200 short tons (181 metric tons) of residential coal per heating season.

Bituminous coal is usually considered a better coal for blacksmithing than heating, but can be burned in some coal stoves and is often only $80-$100 per ton.

Institutional heating with coal is somewhat relevant to residential coal heating and data indicates that institutional coal heating is declining much more rapidly that residential heating.

According to the EIA, US educational institutions consumed 700,000 short tons (634,900 metric tons) of coal in 2015, down from 2 million short tons (1.8 metric tons) in 2008. Twenty of the 57 US educational institutions that used coal in 2008 reported not using it 2015 due to sustainability initiatives. It is likely that most of the coal consumed at educational institutions is used to generate heat. Most US schools no longer heat with coal. Recent (2015-2016) news articles report that only five public schools heat with coal in West Virginia and four schools heat with coal in Cumberland, Maryland. One of the Maryland schools uses 517 tons of coal annually at a cost of $120 per ton.

Coal stove companies

Most coal stoves are made in Pennsylvania except for one big producer, Hitzer stoves located in eastern Indiana. Sales of coal stoves are reported to average 4,000 to 7,000 a year, but in 2008 they may have topped 10,000. In comparison, about 140,000 wood stoves are sold each year. There are about a dozen companies making coal stoves and one notable trend is that the larger wood stove companies are getting out of the coal stove business. Vermont Castings, Harman and Moreso used to sell coal stoves and now don’t. The one company that still focuses on both fuels is US Stove Company, based in Tennessee. Coal stoves cost about the same as wood stoves and range between $2,000 - $3,500.

Stove policy

Coal stoves remain exempt from EPA emission regulations. Coal stoves have never had a certification program at the EPA or at any state level, although the federal government and some states have indicated an interest in developing emission regulations. Regulation would likely drive up the cost of coal stoves and may reduce sales of coal stoves but other strategies may reduce their use faster and more economically. But without emission regulations, there is little data on coal stove emissions from various types of coal stoves, and there is little incentive for stove companies to try to produce cleaner stoves. Tests conducted in the 1980s suggested that wood stoves emitted higher levels of particulate matter than anthracite stoves, but lower levels than bituminous stoves (Houck, 2009). Of course, wood emits fewer other toxic chemicals than coal.

One significant policy change in 2015 was the ban on advertising dual coal/wood use in stoves unless the stove was certified with wood, and the company also tested for coal emissions and provided that data to the EPA. To our knowledge, no company has done this so no stove should advertise the ability to burn wood and coal any more.

The EPA is currently funding research on coal emissions and has developed an unofficial, draft test method at Robert Ferguson’s lab. However, this is being undertaken only because of an EPA program to change out coal stoves on the Navajo Indian reservation, not because it has any apparent mandate or serious plan to start regulating coal stoves.

It is unlikely under the Trump administration that any certification program would be initiated by the EPA, and the only state with enough coal stoves to justify the effort would be Pennsylvania, which is unlikely to do so.

Restrictions of the use of coal stoves

Unlike the United Kingdom, there has never been any national effort in the US to reduce reliance on coal stoves. Krakow, a major Polish city is banning coal stoves in 2019, after a multi-year effort to provide subsidies for alternative heating sources.

Two states – Washington and Oregon – effectively ban them because they only allow stoves that meet specific emission requirements, but those states would have very little coal heating anyway.

Many air districts that have poor air quality and high particulate matter levels employ temporary burn bans apply to coal stoves and well as wood stoves. A few jurisdictions, such as Fairbanks, Alaska, offer homeowners financial incentives to recycle their solid fuel burning appliance (including coal stoves) or replace it with a less polluting appliance (coal stoves are not eligible). However, most change out programs only remove old wood stoves and do not allow coal stoves to be replaced with wood stoves. A Pennsylvania county offered $200 to trade in old wood or coal stoves, but that program has been suspended.

Oregon is the only state where it is illegal to sell a coal stove, or any other uncertified solid fuel burning appliance. Oregon also requires uncertified solid fuel burning appliances, including coal stoves, to be removed and destroyed when a home is sold. According to the latest (2015) Census data, only 143 homes rely on coal for primary heat in Oregon.

At the local level, there may be a number of cities or counties that do not allow coal stoves, but the only one we could find is Summit County, Colorado that forbids the installation of a coal stove (uncertified solid fuel burning device) in a new home or as a replacement unit for an existing non-certified stove.

2021 update: more information about how some New Hampshire homes still heat with coal available here.

Key sources

Dr. James Houck, “Let’s Not Forget Coal,” Hearth & Home Magazine, December 2009, pp.

World Health Organization, “Residential heating with wood and coal: Health impacts and policy options in Europe and North America,” 2015.

Tom Zeller, “Burning Coal at Home Is Making a Comeback,” New York Times, Dec. 26, 2008 

Related stories

Residential Wood Heating in Russia (Aug. 2021)

Best Practices in Change Out Programs (and Why Some Programs Underperform)

Updated: May 2022 - Change-out programs are now commonplace in the wood stove community, particularly in the Northwest, with Libby, MT being the highest profile one.  In Libby and elsewhere, changing out old uncertified stoves to new EPA certified stoves has demonstrably contributed to cleaner air quality.  Typically, wood stove change-out programs start with government funding, and then leverage in-kind donations from wood stove manufacturers, stove retailers and others.  (An updated list of "best practices" for stove change-out programs is available here.)

However, change-out programs sometimes provide fewer air quality benefits than expected.  And, per ton of particulate matter removed from the environment, they can be very expensive.  Raw numbers from Washington State based on money they spent versus estimated emission reduction came to nearly $50,000 per ton of particulate.  When Washington State uses the EPA methodology for calculating cost per ton, the mean cost was between $14,000 and $19,000 per ton. 


In addition to the classic change out program designed to reduce excessive smoke in particular town, valley or region, change out programs can simply help rural households more efficiently use a local renewable energy source.  Also, manufacturers and retailers can undertake them in the slow, summer season.


In assessing the effectiveness of change-out programs, the Alliance for Green Heat found a lack of rigorous analysis or debate about how to best achieve air quality improvements. Some states are starting to develop more innovative features in incentive programs instead of following the pattern set by the EPA and HPBA. Here are eight strategies that will improve change out programs.  Virtually none of these strategies, that many consider key parts of change outs, can be found on the EPA or HPBA change out pages.  Expect push back from local government agencies, HPBA and/or retailers on some of these points, but all of them are becoming more and more accepted.

1. Controlling future installations of wood appliances

Too many change out programs occur in places were people are still allowed to install old, second hand stoves or even outdoor boilers.  Reports touting the success of change-outs in Pennsylvania, Indiana and the Great Lakes states don’t even mention that while old stoves are being removed, uncertified outdoor wood boilers were being installed in the very same communities.  In Vermont and Keene, NH, more uncertified wood stoves may have been installed since their programs ended than were removed.  Before spending limited dollars on change-outs, funds should be focused in areas where the locality has enough commitment to clean air to stipulate that old, uncertified stoves and unqualified outdoor boilers cannot be installed in the future. In urban areas where wood smoke is bad, local governments should consider banning the new installation of all wood stoves and only allow pellet stove installations.

2.  Prioritize which stoves get changed out first

We believe that some programs inappropriately used a first-come, first-served approach when stoves used as a primary of sole heating source in more densely populated areas could have been targeted first.  While this does not apply to valleys with inversions like Libby, where every stove is equally important, in places like Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire, where funds can run out quickly, stoves in the middle of towns which are used as a primary heating device should be given priority.  Some new epidemiology research is coming out saying that stove change-outs do not necessarily improve indoor air quality and the main benefit is to improve outdoor air quality that impacts the community at-large.  In change-outs that cover multi-county areas, or even statewide, as in Vermont's program, we think focusing on stoves in towns is warranted.  Last priority should be stoves in isolated houses that only use wood as a secondary heat source.  Fairbanks may be the best example of effective prioritizing based on location instead of using a first-come, first-serve model.  A related best practice that has been implemented by HPBA, EPA and others is giving priority or higher rebates to low income households. While this is a practical necessity in order for them to participate, it also helps the program ensure that they are getting more stoves that are primary heating appliance of the house.




3.  Focus on wood, not just stoves

Some experts are now wondering if a $150 rebate to help build a wood shed to keep wood dry may produce similar air quality results as a $1,000 rebate for a stove.  It’s well known that the equipment is only half the battle, and the other half is the fuel and the operator.  Requiring firewood dealers to bring a moisture meter when delivering wood and writing down moisture content on the sales receipt may also be a good strategy. Change out programs could prioritize homes with woodsheds, to help ensure that subsidizing a new stove will result in reduced smoke from the home.  Or homes with woodsheds could receive a higher rebate, which incentivizes proper storage and educates people about its importance.

4. Right-size the rebate and require partial payment

When rebates disappear in a few hours or even a few weeks, it likely means the rebate was too generous and a lesser rebate could have resulted in more change outs.  Also, rather than provided a fixed amount, programs that provide 50% or even 35% of the new stove should be considered, where possible.  When smaller, more targeted populations are involved like Keene, NH, larger rebates are required, as they also are with low-income populations.

5. Integrate wood stove inspections in energy audit and weatherization process

If your state is particularly interested in retiring older stoves, it is important that state subsidized energy audits and weatherization programs require that the auditor inspect the wood stove, just like they check other HVAC equipment.  Auditors can educate homeowners about the importance of upgrading to safer, more efficient equipment, spot dangerous installations, assist in removing dangerous stoves and sometimes help get stove upgrades to be subsidized through low interest loans or other programs.  The Building Performance Institute (BPI) is taking the lead to develop guidelines for energy auditors to inspect wood stoves.  In recent years, energy auditors have failed to include wood stoves in hundreds of thousands of homes.

8. Ensure big box stores are included in the program
As long as professional installation is being required in a change out or incentive program, including stoves from big box stores can make funding go much further and enable more low and middle-income households to participate.  Allowing purchases from hardware chain stores can make all the difference for lower income families to trade out that old stove and afford a new one.  Good quality stoves can start around $1,000. One of the highest rated pellet stove brands, Pel Pro, sell for about $1,300 at outlets like Tractor Supply and Northern Tool. Professional installation can be done by CSIA accredited chimney sweeps if local NFI trained staff at specialty hearth stores will only install their own products.  Especially if larger rebates are not provided to low-income families, this is a vital way to help them overcome high upfront costs and help stretch program funding and change out more stoves.

9. Include heat pumps and gas stoves, with efficiency requirements

Most change out programs now offer non-wood or pellet appliances, as they should.  Consumers should be given a selection of the cleanest appliances that meet their needs.  If gas appliances are included, require that they be at least 70% efficiency based on the Canadian gas appliance database.  The US offers to reliable database of efficiency on gas appliances and manufacturer and retailer information is often mistaken, wrong, absent or confusing. Consumer education on gas stoves is crucial. See here for AGH public comments on why the DOE should regulate gas stoves and their efficiency.

Background

Based upon an informal survey of 10 change out programs in 2014, we found the average rebate for a new wood stove was $627 dollars, but ranged from $300 to $1,050 per stove and much more for low-income change outs. The median rebate was $670.  Nine out of the ten programs surveyed offered additional assistance to low -income applicants, and three out of ten offered full rebates.

Change out programs, depending on their size and scope, can cost a great deal of money to run and advertise. Buy back or bounty programs that just pay to remove stoves and do not replace them, are increasing in popularity and should be considered alongside change outs.  They are far cheaper, require much less administration, and can be run on a year round ongoing basis.  The average cost per change out varies greatly between programs. Libby, Montana had a large budget and was servicing a low-income population so the cost per stove was higher.  Pittsburgh program’s average cost was relatively low, at $770 per change out.   Higher costs per stove do not necessarily mean they were less efficiently run, as there are so many variables and so much need for costly educational programs that target homeowners who are not changing out stoves, but may be emitting a lot of excess smoke. 

[Afterward: Sylvia Shultz of Clean Air Fairbanks took issue with part of this blog and you can read her response here.]

Click for larger version.

Postscript

Up until 2020, when EPA regulations changed, AGH had urged change-out programs to adopt practices that are no longer relevant.  We keep them here for historical interest and context.

* Require that new stoves meet stricter emissions and efficiency standards

Almost all change-out programs now require that the new EPA certified stove be 4.5 grams or less, but some are starting to require 3 or 2.5 grams an hour or less. Pellet stoves, which operate in the field much more like they did in the testing lab than wood stoves, should be held to 2.5 or 2 grams an hour at the most.  Some states, with varying degrees of success, are starting to experiment with minimum efficiency requirements and this is likely to be a standard requirement sometime in 2015.  Oregon provides a greater rebate level for stoves made by companies who agree to share verified efficiencies with their customers.  Most stove manufacturers will not release this information, preferring to use unverified and often exaggerated numbers.  Maryland requires a maximum of 3 grams for wood stoves and 2 for pellets. (The Maryland program is a renewable energy program and does not require the change out of an old stove, but about half the old stoves are disabled and destroyed anyway.)

* Require both wood and pellet stoves be EPA certified

Few programs have required that pellet stoves be EPA certified although there are substantial benefits of this.  EPA certified pellet stoves are usually more efficient than their exempt counterparts because exempt pellet stoves often use the 35 to 1 air to fuel ratio loophole to avoid certification but all that air reduces efficiency.  Some pellet stoves are as low as 40% efficient, and many are in the 50s and 60s, when they easily can be in the 70s.  Households should not be unwittingly subsidized to buy a low-efficiency pellet stove that will saddle them with much higher fuel costs for years to come.  Unfortunately, large and small pellet stove manufacturers currently self-report efficiencies and are notoriously adept at exaggerating and inflating their efficiency numbers.  The EPA and DOE have done little to counteract this and have at times contributed to the problem.

Misconceptions About Pellet Stove Efficiencies Persist Year after Year

Alliance for Green Heat, Oct. 2, 2013 - For years, scores of websites have been using information from the Department of Energy stating that pellet stoves have efficiency ratings of 78% - 85% and are exempt from EPA emission testing. Many other sites say pellet stoves are exempt from emission testing because they are so clean to start with.  This has been passed down over the years by retailers, the media, industry sites and non-profits.  The only problem is, it’s simply not true.

Pellet stoves are just like wood stoves: emissions regulations were developed to certify them and there are ways to remain exempt from those regulations, including allowing an air to fuel ratio of 35 to 1 or greater.  The classic technology with a huge air to fuel ratio is the fireplace, and its the main reason why fireplaces are so inefficient.  If a wood or pellet stove is exempt because it has a high air to fuel ratio, its also going to be less efficient, but in the case of a pellet stove, it may only be 5 – 20% less efficient, and still in the 50 – 70% efficiency range.

To add to the confusion, the EPA assigned an estimated default efficiency of 78% for pellet stoves, but no one has reminded consumers that the default efficiency only applies to EPA certified stoves, and not the uncertified ones, which are a majority of pellet stoves on the market.  Experts agree that exempt stoves are likely to be less efficient than certified stoves, but no one urges consumers to buy EPA certified pellet stoves to get higher efficiencies, as they do for wood stoves.

Experts in EPA and industry don't even agree if pellet stoves are "exempt" from certification, or just not covered by the rules, even though they have a well-established test method.  Some experts say  that most pellet stoves weren’t EPA certified because they use a loophole to avoid certification, just like some wood stove manufacturers have done.  That loophole allows pellet stoves with excessive airflow to avoid certification.  And that excessive airflow through the combustion chamber and up the stack significantly reduces efficiency.  To complicate things further, many pellet stoves have not tested to be certified, or tested to be exempt.  They are simply on the market and its unclear if they have a 35 to 1 air ratio or not.  

The EPA's Pellet Stove Fact Sheet says, "Technologies are used to ensure the best fuel‐to‐air ratio in the combustion chamber so that the fuel can burn completely". The EPA fact sheet cited HBPA, the industry association brochure as their source.  In fact the opposite is frequently true because EPA regulation allows for far less than optimal fuel to air ratio as a way to avoid certification. 

The DOE page on pellet stoves has lots of great information, but on this critical point, it perpetuates another myth – that pellet stoves are so clean that they don’t need to be certified.  The DOE says, "with combustion efficiencies of 78% to 85%, they are also exempt from EPA smoke-emission testing requirements”.  That myth is being repeated on scores of prominent industry and independent web sites. [Update: As of Oct. 24, the DOE has updated and corrected its website so that it no longer says pellet stoves are exempt.]

Virtually every pellet stove expert agrees that it is unwise to rely on efficiencies posted by manufacturers, because they are not required to test and list efficiencies in the same way and numbers are often not produced by third party testing facilities.  The EPA list of certified wood and pellet stoves has recently started to list actual efficiencies, in addition to the default efficiencies.  Many of issues will be resolved in 18 - 24 months from now, when the EPA will likely start requiring for the first time, third party, consistently measured efficiency numbers on stove labels.  And, the EPA will get rid of the loopholes that allow for uncertified wood and pellet stoves to be sold on the market.

Consumers are also provided exaggerated efficiency numbers by many if not most pellet stove manufacturers because they report using LHV numbers, instead of HHV ones, but they don’t tell the consumer that they use LHV.

The DOE and EPA should do far more to encourage people to switch from wood to pellet stoves because they are consistently much cleaner and a very effective way to drastically reduce fossil fuels.  They should also help consumers understand what stoves the default efficiencies apply to, and why others can be exempt from certification.  In the meantime, consumers should consider buying EPA certified pellet stoves if they want to ensure higher efficiency stove, whether it is wood or pellet.

Virtually every fuel calculator lists pellet stoves at 78% efficiency without telling them that this only applies to EPA certified pellet stoves.  The average pellet stove is probably around 70% efficient, and could even be lower than the average of EPA certified wood stoves.  Using fuel calculators to see how much you can save switching from fossil fuel to pellets is difficult if you can't get a reliable thrid-party efficiency rating on a pellet stove.  No one knows how many consumers unwittingly bought pellet stoves that may not even be 60% efficient. 

For more consumer information on how to select an efficient stove, click here.