Me again... Open fire vs Woodburner

If you are planning to buy a rental home, or you're thinking about what to do with one you have just acquired, this is the place for any questions about starting out in the rentals business.
loveka
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:32 am

Me again... Open fire vs Woodburner

Post by loveka »

I posted before about how we have had to spend a lot of money on the fireplace and chimney at our cottage, and how we couldn't afford to install a woodburner.

We had decided to just have an open fire, but as the scaffolding is currently up we thought we would line the chimney so that when we can afford it we are ready.

However, it's not so straightforward.

The open fire would apparently need the chimney to be lined too, and the liners are different thicknesses! So we have to decide now.

So do I clear out my savings and have a wood burning stove. Or do I just go with an open fire?

Do guests really choose one over the other?

Thanks for all the help!
Joanna
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Chester, North West England & Sidmouth, East Devon
Contact:

Post by Joanna »

Just to clarify - are you saying that if you get the open fire compatible liner then you can't have a wood burner later on AND vice versa? Or could one liner (the thicker one maybe?) be ok for both. Or is it that the liner is a different diameter if it's going to connect to a stove?

I'm wondering if there would still be a way of adding a log burner later without having to have the chimney re-lined. Maybe someone who has switched from an open fire to log burner would know.

I personally prefer wood burners as I think they're safer. But I would still book a place with an open fire if everything else about it fitted the bill so I guess it wouldn't be a deal breaker.
Jo

Joint owner of Baker's Cottage in Chester & Chandler's Cottage in Sidmouth
loveka
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:32 am

Post by loveka »

Yes, the liners are mutually exclusive apparently. If we change our minds it has to be relined.
Giraffe
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Cornwall, England

Post by Giraffe »

I have one question. If your house was built to have an open fire, why does the chimney need lining for this? Is this one person's opinion - if so, I would consider a second opinion.
The best things in life are free
zebedee
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: yorkshire dales

Post by zebedee »

Would you lose a lot of heat from the property if the fire is not in use in the winter (this can be avoided, we have an iron grate at home with a lid you open and close).
If you think you will lose heat, a log burner may be more practical and cost effective.

Many factors that would sway my decision would be eg about whether or not objects could fall from an open fire (good grate would stop this), the amount of space both would take up etc.

We have a log burner at the cottage. it can be left lit keeping everything warm when people go out or up to bed. I know an open fire can as well, but log burner may lessen the risk somewhat.
Strong winds make an open fire ineffective.

Saying that, an open fire is lovely, and can be so much prettier than a log burner.

Giraafes point is good and I would ask for another opinion
Giraffe
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Cornwall, England

Post by Giraffe »

www.solidfuel.co.uk will give you lots of info on chimneys, flues and liners.
The best things in life are free
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:15 am
Location: Norfolk

Post by Nemo »

I would bite the bullet and go with a stove. After all you can leave the door open if you wish to have an open fire, it's just less effective. I wouldn't pay for a liner now that might then have to be replaced in the future. Even if you don't buy and install the stove now, you can get the chimney lined in preparation and install the stove once you have some income coming in from the property perhaps in time for next winter?
Last edited by Nemo on Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
loveka
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:32 am

Post by loveka »

Thanks for the replies!

The house was built in 1750, but hasn't had an open fire for at least 40 years. The chimney is in a bad way, hence the huge expense.

The builder told us new building regs say an open fire needs a liner, but I will double check!
akwe-xavante
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:19 pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Post by akwe-xavante »

I would fit a liner anyway whatever you choose to do even if it's not required by building regs.

You don't want to kill someone with carbon monoxide poisoning!

And not just within your own property if you property is a part of a terrace or semi detached smoke and carbon monoxide can leak through such an old chimney into the rooms of your own property and that of next door too.

Otherwise a stove is considerably more efficient, burns less fuel and heats up a room / building faster and much more efficiently. It's safer than an open fire and ash and dust etc is contained within the stove better and doesn't spread into the rest of the room making cleaning easier and faster and saves you having to change the flooring and other furnishings too often.

The benefits and long term savings of the stove by far out way the extra cost in the long run.
User avatar
Cymraes
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:31 pm
Location: North Wales

Post by Cymraes »

One thing we found was condensation. An open fire gives a constant circulation of air (and heat loss of course) which older houses need to avoid damp especially if they also have double glazing.

The wood burner has to have the door left open when not in use to achieve the same effect which of course never happens with guests in situ.

I am seriously thinking of ripping out the burner in one room at my holiday property and re-instating a open fire.
Ecosse
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 10:40 pm
Location: Saint Gervais les Bains, France
Contact:

Post by Ecosse »

Having lived in various houses with both open fires and wood burners, I would go for the latter every time. Open fires are inefficient (80% of the heat goes up the chimney... with wood burners, 80% goes into the room), thus far more polluting, draughty when not in use, unless, like suggested, you have a seal in the chimney, smoky if prone to back-draught and, important for us cleaners, hugely dusty.

Also, a personal opinion, I don't like the look of an open fire when it's not in use. It just looks like a dirty hole to me, whereas a stove always looks neat and clean even when it's full of ash.
Martha
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:01 pm
Location: Chamonix

Post by Martha »

As far a a guest is concerned I doubt there's much difference?

But closed every time for me, guests can so easily cause havoc with an open fire. You can get them with good sized windows so that you don't lose any of the feeling of a fire.

Also they pollute far less - this has become a major issue here in recent years, to the point that the Mairie officially requests from time to time that people don't use open fires unless absolutely necessary.

If damp / condensation is a problem, can you get a dehumidifier? We have a small one here for winter, works well.
Chalet la Foret, Chamonix
Post Reply