Open fire v wood burner Cast your votes now.

[NaturalBlondeYeahRight]

I have a beautiful inglenook fireplace. Its part of the reason I bought the place, if you stand in it and look up you can see the sky. Fully lit with 5 logs it gives out as much heat as a large candle only just exaggerating
My friend has a good woodburner in hers, it doesn't look quite so lovely but my goodness the whole house is warmed by it without CH on (thinks of oil savings)

Help. What should I do??

Bump

Definitely a wood burner- they throw out the heat and are much more efficient. There's little point paying to heat your chimney. Personally, I think they look good too. And they're easy to clean/empty/re-lay fire. I love ours. (It's multifuel rather than just wood but we do tend just to burn wood).

We have wood burners but are in London so don't have the choice as open fires are not allowed because of smoke control.

I think they look nice, they are brilliantly thermally efficient, they are environmentally friendly (emit the same amount of carbon as they use) and definitely easy to use.

But given the choice id have an open fire. I guess it depends on finances and how good your central heating is!!

I have an open fire in one room and a 6kw wood burner in another. I do love the open fire but it doesn't pack out the heat like the wood burner. One thing I would say about the wood burner, IME, you would need a lot of outside space to store wood. I have 3 years supply drying in the wood store. IME, you have to almost stand over the burner and "feed it" with wood on a regular basis to keep the heat going.

If I were to buy a stove again, I would buy a multifuel and use smokeless fuel. It needs less "babysitting" and the price of fuel is about the same as wood. The price of logs has rocketed since wood burners have become more popular. Five years ago, a load of logs (about a ton) was £25. The last load I bought was over £100!

Woodburner, ours luckily is situated in the middle of the house so we rarely have to use the oil fired heating, thank goodness!

wood burner

Logburner is far more efficient and sends most of the heat into the room rather than up the chimney.

I have a wood burner and an open fire, the wood burner chucks out far more heat but does go through more logs. Aesthetically they both look as nice, but you can chuck wood that spits in the wood burner and not have to panic about it singeing your carpets, we are currently burning the old garden furniture, its going up a treat with the occasional pop!

Central heating is OK but I still haven't got used to oil. The fire is lit right now and I can't feel it but it looks pretty.
Lots of woodburner votes. I have got storage for logs so not a problem but wondered if multifuel was a good option for keeping fire ticking over. DH really not keen but he can see my point.
I wish I could test drive one.

Log burner here too.

We found an inglenook during the renovations and, like you, could see up to the sky. When we fitted the stove, a register plate went across with insulation around it as I was terrified of all the heat vanishing up there.

I think you may need to do some sums - price up the stove, chimney liner and fitting and extra logs, vs some logs and putting the oil CH on.

I think you might have to choose between the heat source and the view of the stars!

I agree that the stove will be a load more effective at heating the room, and I guess you'll have space for a bloody big one if you want. But you'll have to line the chimney (goodbye night sky), and it won't feel quite so period drama.

Personally I love open fires AND I love stoves, neither more than the other, so we have one of each. But the stove gets the room toasty within about half an hour, whereas the open fire takes about four times the time and fuel to get there. Damn, it's pretty, though!

So, in summary, up to you, really! Oh, and if you go for a stove, consider one of these sorts of things to circulate it out of your 'nook and round the room: www.amazon.co.uk/Valiant-fir300-Stove-Fan/dp/B00748I2MO

I have one of each and prefer the toasty ness of the stove room.

The open fire in the living room is feckin freezing !

there is a reason that open fires are on the way out. About 10-20% efficient, log burners 60-70%.

end of, really.

Against he grain here but I love an open fire, especially in an inglenook. Have you seen the Dovre log burners? They have an fire look but with increased efficiency of a wood burning stove.

Logburner. We have 2 (one in the sitting room and one in the dining room). I absolutely love them and it means that we ony have our heating on for about 3 hours a day. We are on oil as well.

We have a wood burner. It is quite plain, with a big glass door, so you see lots of fire.

It's a lot safer than an open fire, as well, but you still need a fire guard if your DC are small.

We've kept our fireguard around ours because logburners get so hot. With 2 clumsy teenage boys I'm not taking the risk plus it's great for drying washing .

We had an open fire but it was always cold, even when we lit it. The draft down the chimney was constant and the room often filled with smoke when we started it on a cold night. We put in a wood burner about 4 years ago and haven't regretted it for an instant.

If you bought the place for the fireplace, keep the fire!
If you need to economise, put in a log burner.

I am firmly in the wood-burner camp. They are so much nicer than an open fire, easier to light, easier to clean, massively more efficient and they're safer too (no sparks flying out into the room.
We have just one little 5kw wood burner, in the sitting room and rarely use our central heating when it's in use. It's a Clearview Pioneer and I thoroughly recommend it.

I have just been through this: I had my chimney prepared for a woodburner, and the stove itself comes next week! One of the factors that made me go for a multifuel stove was the arctic breeze that blows down the chimney when the fire isn't on (and yes, I did have a nightmare morning trying to get a chimney balloon to sit up there, which ended with me in tears after it got punctured for the fourth time!) With a stove, they install a plate across the chimney with a small opening for the flue. This really cuts down the draught! Even though I haven't even got the stove yet, the room is appreciably warmer as a result.

One thing I would say is that if you want one installed in time for Christmas, you need to get cracking because the fitters get madly busy this time of year.

Another vote for a wood burner! :)

I've had one installed in my fireplace last month and I love it! No more cold air coming in from the chimney, and although the stove is a little one (5kw) it heats up the room really quickly and the upstairs too.

Open fires are pretty but messier, more dangerous, and you need to stand right in front of it to really feel the benefit.

You can get stoves with large windows so you can still see the flames, with an inglenook you should be able to get quite a big stove!

a multifuel stove rather than wood. With glass-panelled doors and "smoke eater" function.

You need a vast amount of wood to equal a sack of solid fuel, and it is useful to keep a few sacks handy.

Joining in here to ask what are the pros and cons of multi fuel vs just log /woodburners?

Also, how much would it cost to convert a fireplace that currently has a tacky flame effect gas burning fire and a multifuel/logburner?

woodburner, but make sure it is actually a multi-fuel stove so that you can burn coal on it too.