Site Discussions

We have been using a Vermont Castings Vigilant (vintage 1977) since we moved into our 1700 sq. ft. home in 1987.  It cranks out the heat and still seems to be sturdy—inside and out.  A couple of years ago, we considered replacing it with a newer version in hopes that it would burn more cleanly and efficiently than our Vigilant.  Our chimney man talked us out of doing that because he stated that our 1977 Vigilant was just as efficient (and more durable) than anything on the market today.  The few statistics I could find pertaining to the matter seemed to back him up, but they weren’t that solid.  I wrote twice to Vermont Castings for some information, but they never responded to me.  Does anyone have some thoughts about this out there?
Tom in Athol, ME—Jan 15, 2012

Thanks for the article, Todd. I also have been following Stinson’s results with great interest. Just a quick comment to point out that if one cuts the flowering stalks of garlic mustard it will very likely grow once again. I just want to point out that folks should be prepared to return for a second or third cutting to prevent seed set. With garlic mustard and other herbaceous invasive plants it is all about seed prevention. Another thing to mention on the topic: If you cut a little late and the seed heads are just beginning to form and then you cut—the plants may still produce viable seed. In this case it is better to bag them up in paper leaf bags and burn the whole bags in brush piles.

I’m so pleased to know that there are simple wood coffins being made in VT.  In my 70s and expecting to live 1-2 decades longer, I’m just beginning to look at what’s available here for simple, ecological, reasonably priced burials.  Cremation has been my family’s traditional burial method - but that takes a lot of energy - to “roast” a human body.  That’s my uneducated opinion.

I think the federal government is the one that has failed the worst.  Thus, I think that this attitude that government is inept and bad has flowed from the national level and with much justification.

Having a quasi-national, government bank print trillions of $$$ without any accountability, having a national government go on several, undeclared wars that have killed tens of thousands, all because some guy decided he was no longer going to sell his country’s oil in dollars, opting for the Euro instead, as well as pass a multitude of laws and rules that only huge corporations can follow (for example, look at what’s happened in the food industry) have all impacted our opinion of government and not for the better.

I don’t think we’ll see a return to more in-depth discussion of any issue any time soon either, Dave as I think short, sound bites, as they call them, are inherent in the media that we use now and inherent to the multi-tasking world most of us live in.  The only hope I see is that, as traditional electronic media such as television give ground to the Internet, and as traditional print media also give way to Internet discussions such as this, perhaps we will regain more ability to discuss and reason once again, such as what we all are doing here, but only time will tell.

Hi, I’m thinking about doing some selective cutting. I have poplar, some big, pine - also quite large, and maple. In terms of marketability what do you recommend? I would very much value your opinion.
Kind regards, Paul
Thank you

Why not get out of the divisive problem of direct governmental choice of winners and losers, and instead try to level the playing field?

Abolish all the energy subsidies and mandates.  At the same time require all energy producers to pay all their “externalities”, fairly measured.  Oil and gas would pay for carbon emissions, wind farms would pay for viewshed damage, etc.  Then step aside and allow the market work with the new, more accurate price signals.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Economically this should be a more efficient solution.  And the simple principle of making all energy producers bear their full costs appeals to basic fairness and can create common ground.

But unfortunately the process of identifying and quantifying externalities would almost surely be more of the same old “politics”—probably just as divisive and distortive as the current reallocation game.

Well written article, I read several facts that I found interesting. On a somewhat tangential subject, would it not be cost effective to mix in lime with the salt/sand to help neutralize acid rain until we correct toxic emmisions? Thanks for the write up.

I appreciated your sensible view, Dave.  I shared your editorial with a 25 year-old niece who is struggling to make sense of all the anti-government rhetoric of an election year contrasted with her strong environmental ethic.  She admits to not knowing what to think.  This piece adeptly shows how governmental actions at the local level are easy to ridicule as they must content with inherent contradictions.

Wasn’t it Lincoln who said something to the effect that we get the sort of leadership we deserve?

That said, the fundamental flaw in the grand plan is that we are addicted to the idea that government intervention solves problems-partly because it absolves us of responsibility. We also want the government to figure out how we’re supposed to live together with different opinions and focuses because we’d rather not have to think for ourselves—at least not in a balanced way that looks at entire issues.

Yes, I’m from Maine, but I’m afraid I don’t have any inside information or magic tricks regarding the situation in Old Town. But I do know this. The current governor is trying to invoke some common sense. He actually is saying there are some things we just can’t afford to do. Steps like that cause some of the symptoms of withdrawal from addiction among the general population.

In the allowance example (an excellent one) if we didn’t have the ten bucks to give the kid to start with an entirely different scenario starts to develop wherein the kid has to think, make smart choices, and actually earn his own way.

When did that become wrong?

Thanks, Ms. Barlow, for another fascinating and enlightening article.  I’d known about salt-sensitive and salt-tolerant plants, but I never knew the biology and chemistry behind them.  I believe that Maine is using a new chemical on the roads (not salt brine, and still mixed with sand) that, while more effective on ice, is worse for vehicles.  Of course I wonder if it is also worse for plants.  I will have to try and find out.

While there certainly are concerns about trust (honesty), there are even bigger concerns about competence. To be blunt, the US government is fundamental inept. It’s very difficult to support this type of organization at just about any level.

Hi, I write a local nature column and had fixated this week on finding out why paper birch bark is so white—what makes it white versus why the light color is a good adaptation to northern latitudes.  You talk about this at the end of this article.  I had thought that yellow birch bark is higher in betulin than paper birch bark (am probably wrong), but, if this is true, is it the arrangement of the crystals in the outer bark that make paper birch more reflective? Or conversely, something else in the yellow birch bark that make it more reflective.  Your’s is the first article I’ve found about what makes paper birch white—do you have any suggestions for more background on this?

If I do write this up, can I quote/reference your Northern Woodlands article?

Thanks
Sue

I’m starting to appreciate the aesthetics of Christmas tree growers—my father-in-law has a small Christmas tree farm and we always get a lot of compliments on our trees we get from him.  They have a lovely conical shape and have been obviously trimmed but don’t have that super-dense look where the branch tips are almost going back on themselves.  It would be fun to compare trees from a set of growers and try to understand each person’s trimming style!

I was surprised to not to find mention of the classic shenandoah until the last entry. I wore out a couple used ones before buying a new one a few years ago. A bit of a wood hog but it heats great and takes big wood. Comes in a box or barrel and when it gets old it works great outside boilin sap.

This came in as a letter to the editor.

Dave,

In response to your question I would recommend any Vermont Castings stove built before the requirement for a catalytic converter. If they are used in the “open” mode at low temps, and in the “closed” at high temps, they are very efficient and almost indestructible. Parts are also generally available. I’ve been heating with both used and new VC’s for over 30 years,

Alan M. Robertson
Sheffield, VT

We have had a Shenandoah stove for 39 years. This is your classic heavy sheet metal stove, firebrick lined , with a bimetal “thermostatic” damper and a flat cooktop. Ashpan is under the grates which makes it esy to simply take out the ashes without letting the fire go out like many of the old Ashleys. We burn 4.5 cords per year, heating a 1843 farmhouse that kinda slows the wind down. We tried a Vermont castings cat stove for one winter and it warped, cracked and was generally useless. The Shenandoah is butt ugly but dependable. Being a forester cutting his firewood on his own woodlot, we burn just about anything.No chimney fires either.

When it comes to advise… my bias is the best advise is in finding the options and figuring the balance. In a sense, instead of over-worrying about making the right decision we may a decision and then make the decision right.

I think Lian is right… the stove only one factor in the formula. For most people, the economics are going to be near the top of the list.

Wood size is is an important factor. Two years ago I replaced a “pretty” stove with one that is much more practical, partly because it takes a pretty decent size chunk of wood. It’s simple to operate, low maintenance. It’s old and not EPA approved, but we do our best to burn it properly. At $150 it didn’t break the bank.

I might think differently if I were heating full time with it.

My suggestion is to perhaps think less about the stove and more about how it’s going to be used and how it’s going to work.

We also have a Woodstock Soapstone that has a catalytic combuster. We love it!
We had a Vermont Castings prior, with out the catalytic combuster and it was terrible.
We didn’t dare leave it going when we were gone. It would puff smoke back into the house when the wind blew. So, I vote Woodstock Soap stone.

A good woodstove is a long-term investment, so it is worth choosing wisely depending on your personal preferences. I also prefer to buy a locally manufactured product, and we’re lucky in Vermont to have such choices. My local choice would be a Hearthstone product.  My personal preferences are traditional cast iron with good viewing of the fire.  Hearthstone has really perfected the design to keep the glass clean!  I’ve owned two catalytic stoves and probably would never buy another.  Very dry wood is a must and the catalytic combustors lose efficiency over time, not to mention they’re expensive to replace.  My best catalytic stove was a Consolidated Dutchwest before it was bought out by Vermont Castings and unsuccessfully redesigned - the most efficient stove I’ve owned in 30 years. The newer version sits in my basement unused, but I wouldn’t sell it to your friend! I love soapstone for appearances and own one, but I would have to say soapstone takes away from energy efficiency - it doesn’t conduct heat like a metal-bodied stove, hence more heat up the flue.  I’ve also used a Jotul (now on its 11th heating season) and have never spent a penny on repairs - it’s a real workhorse but the glass gets sooty after a few days, my only complaint.

I know a couple of thousand dollars sounds like a lot for a stove, but is it really?  Most folks in the US have at least one car, and most have spent north of $10,000 or more on one of those, and cars don’t even last as long as a wood stove.

Speaking to my situation, our house is heated with a masonry heater, a Tulikivi in our case.  Yes, they’re expensive, $15K to 30K, but again, that’s the price of a car and unlike a car, a masonry heater, cared for, lasts the life of a house.  It burns cleanly and efficiently and only needs tending once or twice a day.  Ours is 6 years old now and saves us about $1500 a year in natural gas.  If we heated with propane or oil, as more rural folks do, our savings would probably be double or tripled.

I bought a house in Aroostook County, Maine not too long ago that I hope to move to.  I don’t care if I have to drive a $1500 “beater” car in order to save up the money - I’m putting in a quality wood stove or masonry heater as I remodel the house (1000 sq ft.)  I am NOT heating even a small home through a County winter with $4.00/gallon heating oil that most likely will be come $5, $7, or even higher-priced heating oil in not too many more years.

In short, I’d recommend folks do whatever they can, to re-prioritize their economic lives to re-allocate more money for a quality alternative heating device.