http://www.cuttingedgefirewood.com/news/fireplace-vs-wood-burning-stove-whats-the-difference/
"Wood-stoves approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have an average efficiency of about 70%. What does this mean exactly? It means wood-burning stoves convert roughly 70% of the wood’s organic matter to heat. To put that number into perspective, fireplaces have an average efficiency of about 20% to 25%. Therefore, wood-burning stoves are up to three times more efficient than fireplaces."
So, what this is saying is that UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE (THEORETICAL) CONDITIONS a wood stove "throws away" 30% of all energy. That theoretical efficiency limit has no bearing on reality in actual use.
If you've managed a stove you realize that MOST of the time you simply aren't able to run it at MAX energy (mininal air) without putting out the fire.
So, I believe the article is saying that on average stoves throw away more like >50%< of the potential heat in what they are burning.
Rocket stoves get most of the other 50%. Not magic at all. Most of the Nitrous oxide and other distillates CAN be burned all the way down to C02+H20.
The other thing kind of neat, shown on the 2nd link, is a really beautiful house built INTO the ground. Building standards of normal frame construction are not even remotely close to energy efficient vs. going 6 feet down where year round temperatures above 50 degrees F.
"Modern" construction presumes oil and natural gas are infinite in supply and, effectively "FREE". What do I mean by "free"? I mean, if you tried to chemically create a "gallon of oil", from C02 + H20, it could be done....at I don't know ... maybe $1000 per gallon????
http://newatlas.com/co2-water-hydrocarbon-fuel-uta/41976/. And what is the EROEI? I bet not not good.
I don't know what the cost will be vs. the quality (density) of the fuel they would be creating. Probably nowhere near diesel (heating oil) quality. However, given that they don't want to talk about that, but instead hide behind the "climate change" BS, I am probably not at all of the mark when I say something like diesel can't sustainably be produced for less than $1000/gal, even given "free" CO2 and H20 as starting materials (but sustainably, which means no pollution, no higher level inputs which are "free").
However, I bet my $1000/gal is probably a lot closer than the $3/gal we presume for "free" / mined oil.
HERE'S THE PUNCHLINE:
At which point, we may well find that ALL traditionally built, multifloor structures (with the vast majority of surface area STUPIDLY heating the -20F outdoors, instead of the +50F ambient temp 6 feet down in northern latitudes, are NOT worth the price of heating. That is, it is "cheaper" to let them rot and collapse than to heat them.
I'm taking some wild-ass guesses here. But let's say I am off by an order of magnitude on cost -- heating the great outdoors instead of the earth6 feet down -- still is not too bright, and still not long term sustainable given current population and lifestyle tradeoffs.
And, worst of all, we COULD have built something sustainable instead, if we started presuming oil and other fossil fuels are super-scarce resources instead of $3/gal with infinite supply.
| 
