Experience with water-bearing fireplace vs normal burner

Good evening,

still in the planning phase, we are still asking ourselves whether a water-carrying fireplace makes sense and is worth the effort and money. I would like to hear your honest experiences and some good advice...

Current state: We are building according to Ennef 2016 with a Wolf gas condensing boiler and solar panels + 300L hot water storage tank. Our fireplace is located with its back to the utility room, which is a very short distance from the water storage tank and boiler.

Please burst my bubble of false assumptions.

When I come home or am at home and I know that today I will have a bathing session, or it gets cold at night, can I put so much energy (heat) into the heating system with the fireplace, assuming of course the wood is free in theory, or is it marginal?

Can I simply keep the fireplace burning or add another coal? Or is the additional cost for the fireplace / installation / circulation pump etc. just not justified?

Regards, Mars

Hmm, once again: No, it's not worth it. The entire control technology and the additional investment will almost certainly eat up the potential savings because you need a bit more than just an additional circulation pump. And if you invest a little more, you get a sauna and then have to air it out.

https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/ist-ein-wasserfuehrender-Kaminofen-sinnvoll.33882/

Take a look here

https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/ist-ein-wasserfuehrender-Kaminofen-sinnvoll.33882/

Take a look here

I had already activated the search function, but the forum is so full that I did not find anything.
Thank you very much, I think my illusion has been refuted.

We will then rather stick to the normal fireplace.

If you already plan a 300l tank, it can also be used as a buffer tank for the fireplace with the appropriate connections. That's already half the "rent".

The recurring cleaning tasks discouraged us.