Roospike said:
I dont think you get it ................
You cant compare 1.7 lbs of pine to 1.7 lbs of Oak and call it the same BTU or heat value.
I guess you need to explain it a different way.
Bio is correct that most wood has the same BTU per pound.
You also definitely have to consider that a pound of biobricks weighs one pound, while a cord of wood is usually short! In other words, it is rare to get the full 128 cubic feet or 4,000 pounds of useful wood.
There are many ways to skin a cat!
A more fair comparison would be biobricks to pellets. A ton of each are similar prices. You are paying for the work, shipping, raw materials and profit involved - and you get an easier to use product.
Price is not the only issue - and if it is, a person would usually not want to burn biobricks. In other words, they are not for the central heat crowd nor the 10 cord a year woodsman.
Real world - A usual (short) cord of mixed harwoods might be 3,000 pounds if dried to the same moisture content. Softwoods, which are all you get in many areas of the USA, are closer to 2,000 - or the same as a ton of bios.
Again, a comparison to pellets is more accurate. As far as tests, I would await true lab testing before thinking that bios were vastly more efficient. I think they could be 20% more efficient at most. In other words, a stove might be 60% efficient with decent seasoned firewood and 70% with bios. But saying they are 70% more efficient would suggest that a new stove is 50% efficient with firewood and 85% with bios - both numbers seem out of kilter.
We always have to get back to using renewable fuel....in other words, many "green" people have claimed they would pay MORE for renewable local fuels. Well, here is your chance! I'm dead serious about this - pellets are somewhat in the same boat. They may not be the cheapest fuel, buy you do feel good about burning them!
Oh, and Ross - calm down! We're all on the same side.... :coolsmile: