Amen to that. I am so glad I got hooked on Dave Ramsey. Now I know better than to rely on credit, I really don’t care about my credit score anymore. Too many Banks running our country perhaps is the problem, IMHO.
BeGreen - 15 October 2007 01:17 PM
Yep, frugality used to be considered one of the cornerstones of patriotism. Now we’re told it’s our patriotic duty to go out and shop.
I just took delivery of my first 3 tons and I must say they are great. I am mixing them with wood that I bought earlier. I have an All Nighter mid Moe that can handle a full load.
Not so good with maths, but how does one compare prices between bio bricks & wood? Because of this thread, I just bought a 10 kilo (22 lbs) pack for approx U$4.75 from the local grocery store for giggles. I just threw 2 bricks into the stove and find them burning nicely. Actually, I quite like these things. If I’m right, it’s costing me about U$432 per ton. With those prices, you’re thinking I should probably stick to wood. But wood is costing me U$110 per meter-cubed (split & delivered). So, in the end, I really don’t know what is more cost-effective. What should I be looking for and how?
If I am calculating it right 3.5 cubic meters is equivalent to a cord of wood. We pay about US$200 for a cord split and delivered. You are paying about US$385 per cord.
A ton of bio bricks (2000 US pounds or about 910 kilograms) is about US$250 where I am. I’m not sure but it seems people are equating a cord of wood to a ton of bio bricks. Some one correct me if this is not correct.
So you are paying US$432 for a ton of bio bricks and US$385 for the wood. That is about the same relationship of price here.
The big advantage I have is I cut my own wood so it is much less expensive for me. Bio bricks are much more expensive for me to use.
Let’s see if someone has a better idea how a cord of cordwood relates to a ton of bio bricks.
A better comparison is the btus per ton. One ton of bio bricks = 17,000,000 btus (50 pkgs x 20 bricks x 17,000 btus). By comparison, a cord of white oak = 4000 - 4500#, 25,700,000 btus or if very dry, 12,850,000 btus / ton. Bio bricks emit 50% less particulates per cord burned which is impressive. Also, in a correctly packed stove, they release meaningful heat over a much longer time. This is one of the best features, especially for overnight burns.
I like your thought process. So you are saying that you get 1.3 times the heat from a ton Bios than from a cord of cordwood (assuming you get the same BTU’s per pound from all wood types which I think is roughly correct).
So it would make economic sense for me to burn bios if I were buying cut and split wood. Interesting. Further you say there is an enviromental advantage to bios. I cannot logically disagree with you but somehow I can’t believe it can be economically and enviromentally better to burn bios.
To get the raw materials for bios you have to cut and process trees (same as cord wood). Then you have to add further processing to make bios which is capital intensive compared to making cordwood. You need a building with presses, feeders, driers, etc, etc. Even if you are using 100% free sawdust from mills, I would think the building, equipment, energy etc would add up to significant costs for bios.
I have no factual arguements against what you are saying but somehow I feel there is something wrong with this scenario. Maybe someone can help here. Biopellet maybe?
I’ll give this a try, though I am not a scientist or product expert. To my knowledge, bio bricks, pressed logs and most pellets are not made from trees cut explicitly for their manufacture. Instead, they use the tremendous amount of sawdust that is created from the lumber and plywood industry. This used to be considered a waste product. They use their own fuel to dry the sawdust and in some big plants to power them. It’s sifted very clean so that one is burning virtually no bark. The infrastructure is expensive, but is a one time expense. Some pressed log machines were made in the 1920’s and are still in production! Yes, there is transportation environmental costs, but so is there for any fuel.
According to bio-bricks their product has been tested to be about 52% less emissions (in gms/hr) than clean cord wood burning in an EPA certified stove. A lot of that is because one does less refilling over a 24 hr period than with burning cord wood.
Is it perfect, absolutely not. Is it more environmentally (and politically independent?) friendly that say middle east oil or even US coal? Definitely yes. If the goal is zero carbon footprint, perhaps we all should be living underground or at least in earthbermed houses, 1/4 the current size, wearing sweaters and heating our houses with just the lighting and appliances within it. But there are a few million existing homes in the way right now that still need heat. To be clear, I’m not advocating everyone stop burning cordwood. It makes great sense to burn it cleanly when locally available. Biobricks, pellet stoves, & compressed logs, are a great alternative for people in an urban or suburban area where fuel has to be trucked in regardless and where population density dictates much cleaner burning per household. Considering that is where the majority of the population now lives, the product makes good sense to me.
Well said, BG. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about bottled water and how transportation of such impacts the enivronment ....
Piecing together everyone’s comments, it appears bio bricks could be competive in price with wood (split & delivered), not to mention their potential advantages, if burned properly, to the environment. Obviously the small bundle I bought at the supermarket is overpriced compared to bulk purchases. Then again, this is France, and I pay less for a bottle of wine than I do for a bottle of Evian water. Go figure.
I’m still not buying that bios are less expensive. Again no data to back it up but I just don’t see it clearly.
The infrastructure for bios is not a one time expense. It needs to be maintained and/or replaced over time. That is why we depreciate capital. Also you added even more to the operations (sifting?).
A cordwood operation is much less capital intense and likely less energy intensive.
I’ll agree with you the environmental advantages may be there. Also I will agree we have to get away from foreign oil before the oil rich countries buy the US in its entirety.
Finally, I am sure bios have there place just as pellets do but I just can’t believe they are more cost effective than cord wood.
Oh, don’t get me started on water. How the soda companies convinced millions their water was unsafe and then sell them city tap water for $8/gallon? These companies are laughing all the way to the bank at the planet’s expense and yet are the first to fight recycling laws and deposits. They should be called on the plastic carpet and buried in their debris.
I’m still not buying that bios are less expensive. Again no data to back it up but I just don’t see it clearly.
The infrastructure for bios is not a one time expense. It needs to be maintained and/or replaced over time. That is why we depreciate capital. Also you added even more to the operations (sifting?).
A cordwood operation is much less capital intense and likely less energy intensive.
I’ll agree with you the environmental advantages may be there. Also I will agree we have to get away from foreign oil before the oil rich countries buy the US in its entirety.
Finally, I am sure bios have there place just as pellets do but I just can’t believe they are more cost effective than cord wood.
Of course, I didn’t mean to imply it was maintenance free, neither are chainsaws! But the system is pretty clean.
The difficulty in comparing to chainsaws and cord wood is that it is full of hidden variables in trucks, splitters, saws, etc. distributed over many thousands of people. It’s hard to summarize the environmental impact of the manufacture, repairs, etc of all that is required for cordwood, from cutting, moving, splitting, moving again to the customer. Maybe Eric has seen some studies. But it is measured and quantified that 2 strokes are notorious polluters. A gallon mix burned saw is equal to a huge number of miles driven in a clean car.
When I get a chance I’ll see if there have been any studies published on this. You could be correct, but so far I’m not convinced.
I have no arguement with you on the enviromental side only the cost side and particularly how the infrastructure drives cost.
Although totally unsubstantiated, I believe cordwood costs less than bios to produce and deliver. We need some more expertise than you and I have to decide this. Where is Biopellet? Does anyone else have some expertise that could help.
I like your thought process. So you are saying that you get 1.3 times the heat from a ton Bios than from a cord of cordwood (assuming you get the same BTU’s per pound from all wood types which I think is roughly correct).
Comparing the cordwood to bricks using BG’s numbers, you need 1.5 tons of Bios (at about 17MBtus/ton) to equal 1 cord of wood (25MBtus).
They are very convenient but not a cheaper option than wood unless you’re paying $375/cord for wood. (assuming the Bios are $250/ton)
good point. I was comparing apples to oranges when I calculated 1.3 times more heat for a ton of Bios. I compared a ton of wood to a ton of bios not a cord of wood to a ton of bios. However oak is one of the best woods out there but even using a less dense wood like birch bios still have no economic advantage.
I like your thought process. So you are saying that you get 1.3 times the heat from a ton Bios than from a cord of cordwood (assuming you get the same BTU’s per pound from all wood types which I think is roughly correct).
Comparing the cordwood to bricks using BG’s numbers, you need 1.5 tons of Bios (at about 17MBtus/ton) to equal 1 cord of wood (25MBtus).
They are very convenient but not a cheaper option than wood unless you’re paying $375/cord for wood. (assuming the Bios are $250/ton)
-Colin
\
Colin, you are missing the weight of a cord of wood. That’s correct as long as you remember a cord of wood is going to be 2 tons or more. So the bios make economic sense in many areas where cord wood is expensive.
Weight is unimportant to the economic arguement. As you said yourself it is BTUs per dollar. So cordwood is always less expensive in BTUs / dollar even with moderately dense woods.
This is not to say Bios are not good. I have a friend who burned cordwood for 25 years and switched to pellets a few years ago because, at 60+ years old, he could no longer do the physical work it took to do cordwood. Bios would have saved him installing a new expensive stove. Too bad they were not available then.
I think Bios are a great product and have their market as stated above (in the city, people who don’t want to or cannot do the physical work, people who want to be greener possibly and likely other reasons).
Those who are looking at ecomonics as their foremost concern should stick with cordwood.
