Any Thoughts on Economical Operation of Wood Stoves and Inserts?

I'm real comfortable with 70 when it's from wood heat, more so than I am with baseboard or a forced-air furnacce. So getting the room up to 85 is mis-management on my part, which I am usually very able to do now. WHen I first started using this stove, that wasn't the case.

The thing that I'm looking at right now is just how heavily invested I'm in with all these things that I'm buying to help heat my house, and hopefully save money.

*stove and installation (offset by tax credit)
*firewood
*chain saw
*chaps, glove, and eye/ear protection
*wood hauler (including registration, insurance, maintenance, fuel)

not to mention the little odds and ends like splitting maul, glass cleaner, fire starters, and gasket/cement.

It's starting to add up.

So was fuel oil.

I guess the biggest thing I do to save on firewood is to try to be attuned with the rhythm of our day and the rhythm of our useage. Now that it's getting warm again, I light a fire whne it starts to get chilly in the evening, and let it burn out awhile before we're going to bed on weekdays. I count on the sun to heat the house in the day, and because it heats up thermal mass, the house usualy doesn't start to feel uncomfortable until the air temps are pushing 60. That wouldn't be nearly as comfortable if the walls and floor and furniture were also 60 instead of having been sun-warmed. On weekends, I burn as needed to stay comfortable, but let the fire go out midday when I know the sun has that covered.

I bought some firewood, but I bought it green at green prices instead of seasoned at twice that.

I harvest dry standing and leaning deadwood off my property when I can.

I shopped for the most economical wood hauler I could find.

I built my own hearth using granite panels that had some edge chipping, not visible when hidden under stove.


Is this what you're looking for? Or more specifics in the operations?

A quick look at the chimney tells all. If you see no smoke or just water vapor, it's pretty much as efficent as it gets. The rest is just burning the right amount to keep the house comfortable.

The economics of wood heat are, for most people, awful. The purchase price of the stove, the flue, the installation of same, the firewood and stacking of same, nearly guarantees that the payback at current energy price levels (with the possible exception of electric resistance heat) is simply too long to be economically viable. In my own case the price of my Jotul Oslo and the double insulated stainless flue exceeded $3,000 - and I installed it all myself. My current heating cost (16 seer heatpump) is only $600 to $700 per year (the marginal cost of running the heatpump over my other electric usage). If I had to purchase the the three cords I burn per year it would take 10 or more years to break even.

But I don't like heatpump "heat". And I expect energy cost to skyrocket. And I have 50 acres of oak and hickory timber.

Even so it is a hard slog economically. I can see a day when a power wood splitter will become a necessity ($1200, or more). Even at my age I have a longer life expectancy than my chain saw. And I will either have to always have a 4X4 pickup truck or an ATV.

But to economize I did have the good sense to start with extremely good insulation - R 50 in the attic, R 30 in the walls, cellular shades on the high efficiency windows. This allows the heat to be much more even, rather than one overly warm room and cold rooms at the periphery. This in turn means I don't have to push the stove as hard and burn at so fast a rate. For a typical homeowner, unless you start by limiting your heat losses out the walls, ceilings, and windows you will never be able to move warm air into the outer rooms as fast as it is being lost. The result is that just three cords a year provides at least 95% of my heat for my 2500 sq. ft. house here in southwest Missouri.

Regarding short burns for warmer weather, mostly I don't. I have plenty of cedar for starting fires quickly, but the first load is largely used just to bring the stove up to temp. I have found using the stove's natural three hour or four hour cycle to be the most efficient. This is also true for my cat stove out in the shop. So it is on these late spring days when the highs are only 55 or 60 deg. f. that I finally turn on the heatpump - and wear a sweater.

velvetfoot said:

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think you end up chasing this one around between discussions of your heat load, fuel, burning practices and burning equipment.

Fuel - the whole system is based on it. Dry wood, life is good. Less than ideal fuel, frustrated posts about why your stove doesn't work. I don't think there is a reliable source of dry wood in my area. So, this gets you into storage of multiple years of wood that you either put time or money into. I have elected to go the put time into it route. My costs are $15/cord out of pocket after upfront capital expense versus $200/cord purchased delivered. I originally purchased cut split delivered but once I figured out that 'seasoned' wood wasn't dry and that I would have to have 4 to 6 grand in wood laying around, processing my own made more sense to me. Some argue the carrying cost of the equipment makes processing your own not worth it. But, what about the carrying cost of 2-3 years of purchased wood? Or worse, burning less than dry wood.

Burning practices - I hate starting fires. I start the stove once per year and load it full every time to minimize touches. Both are more convenience than economics. My goal is even temperatures with a little cooling overnight but plenty of fuel in the morning in the firebox so that you can just turn the tstat/blower up to bring the house up to temp. I wouldn't need a big cat stove with a tstat if I was willing to start/feed a smaller stove more often and keep an eye on it. But, 7+ months a year is a long time and I don't have a furnace.

Burning equipment - the big cat stove lets you do large loads all year and not overheat your living space but it comes at a larger upfront price. Again, 7+ months a year is a long time and I don't have a furnace.

So, everyone's situation and goals are different, but that is how I got to where I am. I can see where a 2-3 cord per year heat load might not justify the expense of a wood operation especially if you have access to natural gas or cheap electric and a heat pump will do the job.

Jotul8, you brought up another good point of economy. As far as my stove is concerned, I don't `ride it hard and put it away wet': I coddle my stove, and use it with the intent that it will outlast me. I even wipe down the glass with each use to keep from getting why-bother-trying buildup from occurring. A well-insulated house means that you don't have to run your stove full out.

However, your benevolent climate isn't shared by everyone. I know folks who pay as much a month to heat their houses as you did in a year. When I was heating with a boiler, I was using about 830 gallons of fuel oil a year to heat a 2Ksf house and a garage--and mine is one of the most energy efficient houses I know of. I heard that the *average* house this size in this area burns twice that. Fuel prices went up to about 3.60 a gallon recently. That means that some folks are paying almost 10 times what you do for an annual heat bill. Crazy.

Even if I bought firewood at the highest prices around here, about $300 a cord, and burned my outside estimate of wood, five cords, I'd still slash my heating bill by half. My plan is to replace my boiler and to burn heating oil sparingly, and supplement with heat.

So I'm curious now. Will run some what-if scenarios to see what the payoff will be in heating my house with wood with the purchases I mentioned above.

jotul8e2 said:

R 50 in the attic, R 30 in the walls, cellular shades on the high efficiency windows.

southwest Missouri.

Click to expand...

Not everyone lives in a modern house in a mild climate.

I live in northern Massachusetts. The 20% of the walls I've found an excuse to knock out have been foam sealed and the upgraded to R13 or R20 but the other 80% suck. Insulation is poorly installed R7 with lots of air leaks in the 2x4 walls. I've replaced two doors with modern high efficiency ones and put new weather stripping on the third. However, the windows are 42 years old. My brother bought a house in the area this fall that is 80 years old. He discovered has NO insulation on the first floor walls.

Outside temperatures are so cold an air-source heat pump wouldn't work 3 months a year here and the cost of resistive heating backup would easily exceed your annual heating bill every month.

Lots of low cost wood heat (and replacing sheetrock and insulation as part of "painting" a room) is the economical solution for me.

I figure gathering/splitting/stacking/restacking/loading wood costs me $20-100/cord (and 6-10 hours of lost leisure time). Financial payback on my VC stove and double wall pipe was 1 heating season. The payback on the HF splitter was another 1/2 heating season. I expect the payback on the Jotul insert and flex liner at the other end of the house to be 2.5-3 heating seasons, but the temperatures are much more even throughout the house so it is well worth it. If I went with a cheaper stove or insert the payback would be even faster.

snowleopard said:

....I know folks who pay as much a month to heat their houses as you did in a year. When I was heating with a boiler, I was using about 830 gallons of fuel oil a year to heat a 2Ksf house and a garage--and mine is one of the most energy efficient houses I know of. I heard that the *average* house this size in this area burns twice that. Fuel prices went up to about 3.60 a gallon recently. That means that some folks are paying almost 10 times what you do for an annual heat bill. Crazy.

Even if I bought firewood at the highest prices around here, about $300 a cord, and burned my outside estimate of wood, five cords, I'd still slash my heating bill by half. My plan is to replace my boiler and to burn heating oil sparingly, and supplement with heat.

So I'm curious now. Will run some what-if scenarios to see what the payoff will be in heating my house with wood with the purchases I mentioned above.

Click to expand...

Furnace oil around here is pushing $4.00/USG. I heat with wood, and am thankful that I enjoy it - because it is fast becoming an economic necessity. My particular house would cost roughly $3500 - $4000 per year to heat with oil. Burning wood costs around $500. I also use the term "heat with oil" loosley. People around here don't "heat" with oil - they don't freeze with oil. It's too expensive to "heat". A benefit of wood is the house is warm - really warm if I choose - at a minimal cost. I like being warm, I don't like just not freezing. I like that I can get the house 85F and sit there in my underpants with a beer in the dead of winter if I like and not feel too bad about it (hard to put a dollar figure on that).

Heating with wood need not come with a huge up front cost either. The stove is the perhaps the biggest initial investment. Beyond that - it's nice to have a 1 tone pick-up, but not needed. It's nice to have a splitter, but not needed. It's nice to have a brand new 372xp, but not needed. I bought my saws used and repaired them. Buy my wood 8' by the tandem load for a good price, and top up with wood from my own property. Split by hand (not for everyone I realize).

There are numerous reasons why I like heating with wood, and to be honest, if price was equal (which it is not), I would still heat with wood.

Chopping and sawing gets you warm, whereas if you sit motionless by a radiator and just throw a switch, you are likely to feel chilly even if the temp is the same as with wood heat.
3 or 4 years wood stacked up outside is not money wasted, it's like fuel futures, and the way I see it fuel prices seem to be going one way, and one way only, up.
So your wood stack is not just increasing in value as it seasons, it is earning money like no bank account ever paid.
The independence from the system is another factor in many people's thinking, if there is a power outage, you don't suddenly go cold or dark.
Wood stoves with flat tops mean you can cook on them, saving money.

But nothings as good as sitting indoors at 85f in underpants drinking beer when it's freezing outside.........without worrying about some utility bill down the line!

Although I'm not heating yet with wood, I am extremely interested in it. From a purely financial purpose, even buying pre-split wood at the highest local cost, and I conservatively cut my oil heat usage in half, I'd still break even in less than 3 years. Our monthly oil budget plan is higher than my first car payment. So that's a monthly strain that doesn't end when the weather warms up. If the price of oil climbs more next season (probably will), then that break even point will get even closer.

I also like the idea of not having to pack my family up and run away just because the power goes out for more than a couple hours in the winter. That happened this past winter and I refuse to do that again. Its embarrassing and uncalled for.

And thirdly, I just like splitting cordwood. I gives me some of the only exercise I get other than routine home improvement/maintenance. That'll change a little this year with the garden, but its not the same as moving a couple tons worth of rounds to the chopping block.

Payback is determined by initial investment and the resultant annual savings as we all know. If the savings are not going to be there, keep the initial investment low.

At my age I need exercise. Cutting our own woodlot is inexpensive. The wood stove was $125. Not a beauty, but UL and EPA listed. The flue was already in place. It will run you out of the lower level.

Our natural gas cost $12.00/therm this year, $14.00 last year. We don't have a furnace. We heat by drawing off the 40 gallon (33,000 BTU/hour input) hot water heater. Annual cost is low. Not much room for savings.

However, at our location, we have semi-regular ice storm induced power outages. One lasted four days. The house is super-insulated, so nothing freezes, but it still gets well below the comfort level. It takes the hot water heater three or four days to raise the house temperature back to normal if solar is not contributing. The wood stove takes care of those problems. I like it so much, I am buying a modern cast iron stove. I will get the stainless on down and the stove for $800. It will go in the upper level. At which point, next winter, I am going to try to keep that unit going during the coldest 90 days to see how the house feels. It will take a few years to pay back, but I am not investing much.

Which brings me to my point. A low initial investment is possible if you are willing to keep looking for good used equipment. Granted, it is not likely I'll ever find another quality efficient catalytic stove for $125. But I did find one. It took me over a year to find the second stove. But with low total initial investment, payback becomes a reality. Especially these days with rate of return for capital so low. The wood stove is one of the best investments going that I see right now for my circumstance.

velvetfoot said:

I don't think this subject is addressed that much. Most times, it seems, there is talk of the room getting to 85F, etc.
Wood, is never free...it costs effort, if nothing else. And, when purchased, certainly is not cheap.

I can think of topics like:

-Easy ways to start a fire, so that fire would be more likely to let die, since it can be restarted easily

The easiest way we have found is to use good kindling. For use that means making some 1" x 1" pieces made from soft maple. The soft maple dies fast, lights extremely easy and it burns fast to help get the other wood started. To top this all off, we put in 1/4 of a Super Cedar and have never had a start fail yet. It is very quick easy this way. We also set out wood a bit different than others but I've explained this before so won't do it here.

-More economical stoves-are Cat stoves inherently more economical?

I'm not really sure that cat or not cat has the upper hand here. We love our cat stove simply because we use so much less fuel and both the stove and chimney stay so clean which means very little maintenance.

-Ways of feeding - a log at a time or more massive cyclical loading?

To me, feeding a log at a time is wasteful and a very poor way to run a stove. True that it is a bit different in spring and fall and sometimes we only put in 2 pieces of wood but those 2 pieces will last for many hours and keep the house comfortable. If we use more wood, the house can quickly get a bit too hot.

-Accepting somewhat lower ambient temps in the stove area

To me this is ridiculous. I burn wood so that I can stay warm in my home. True that I do have a physical problem that perhaps requires me to have a warmer house but why not keep it comfortable? I'm also always amazed how folks are not happy in the summer months unless the temperature is well over 80 degrees but yet settle for 65-70 in the winter. We do try to keep our house at as even of temperature as possible and are usually quite successful with this plan.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

There are those who claim that wood heat is not economical. If that is true, then we have been wasting a lot of dollars for over 50 years. I can think back when a lot of folks were going away from wood heat and would brag they could heat their homes for a dollar a day. Those days are gone for sure but even back then (the 50's and 60's) wood heat was more economical. If it weren't, we probably would be heating with gas or oil but I'll be very honest and say that I never had enough money that I could afford that gas or oil so we heated with wood and have been very happy.

One thing really seems to jerk my bobber is the folks who spend thousands of dollars on their heating plant but then decide to maybe heat some with wood to save a dollar. They do not hesitate to spend thousands on the gas or oil heating but balk at spending a thousand dollars on a good wood stove. Instead they look for the cheapest bargain they can find. The also will install the wood stove...and then go looking for fuel, not realizing that wood needs time to dry in order to burn right. Then they will blame the stove or chimney when it is poor fuel that causes their problems.

Awesome thread. It shows why many of us do what we do. Would make a good sticky.

I can honestly say that I do everything within my power to burn as efficiently as possible, well almost as I did sell my cat stove and purchase a noncat . Seriously though as much as I love my wood heat it costs me way to much in time and bodily wear and tear to have my house 85 and the windows open at 0 degrees outside. My wood has at least three years of seasoning on it and this years had four. I keep my stove room 74 degrees, the rest of my first floor about 70 and my upstairs bedrooms 68 to 66 as we all sleep better at that temperature. If I don't need a fire I let it go out since it's not that hard to get a new one started with properly seasoned wood.

C106, why did you sell the cat stove? And I agree, we cant stand being suffocated with heat. We like the way our jamas feel.

snowleopard said:

...
However, your benevolent climate isn't shared by everyone. I know folks who pay as much a month to heat their houses as you did in a year....

Click to expand...

So do I. Some of them live just up the road. Do not overstate the "benevolence" of our climate - we had two cold snaps where it dropped to -15 f. I know that is nothing compared to upper Minnesota, but it ain't Dixie either. The average 2000 sq. ft. house around here must cost a $150 per month for natural gas or $200 for propane over seven months a year. Many are much more. Note that all the figures I use are for heating only, not a total utility bill; around here the actual total utilities run about twice the heating cost itself. I worked very hard to make my house energy efficient but nothing I did is out of reach for anyone planning to spend significant amount of money on a wood burning system.

The point is that going to wood heat is, for most people, a very expensive process. And the payback, for most people is very long. And adding insulation, sealing gaps, improving windows, and stopping heat losses is the first best use of their money. Particularly where air conditioning is a major expense as well.

I am going through this at an 1800 sq. ft. house at 8600 ft. in Colorado. The previous owner went through 250 gallons of propane some months. I found only r-24 in half the attic, insulation missing in some wall cavities, door thresholds that you could actually see the yard through, and on and on. I'm not quite through, but I've spent about $1800 and rather a lot of time. Cans of spray foam, caulk, new door seals, fiberglass batts, cellular shades AND insulated close fitting drapes later the house has gone from more than 9 gallons of propane a day (in the most extreme weather) to just barely under three. This is at least a $300 per month saving over three months per year, and $100 to $150 per month for maybe five more months. I have not even thought of a wood burning stove yet.

So, again, I will assert that the best efficiency in burning wood a heat source is achieved by first making sure the house will stand a reasonable chance of keeping that heat in.

Although part of the reason I started burning wood so long ago was to save a bit of money while trying to get started in life. But the main reason for me has always been much more than that. I like the independence. When I look out at my stacks in the summer, I know I WILL be warm next winter. I like to be outside in the winter cutting wood. When I come in, I appreciate the warmth of the wood. It soothes my mind, my heart and soul. It keeps me from being depressed....it is my therapy in the winter. I don't keep track of how much I burn and don't really care. If it is cold, I burn more, and cut more. I don't keep track of how much I spend or save. It doesn't matter, I am going to heat with wood either way. Sorry, I know this doesn't really answer the question at all but it just isn't very relevant for me.

jotul8e2 said:

The economics of wood heat are, for most people, awful.

Click to expand...

Not if you live in a cold climate they're not. With what the recession did to my income, I literally could not pay my bills if I were still heating with oil. Even though I have to buy my firewood c/s/d, I spend at most a third as much heating with wood as I did with oil, and that was before the price shot up to the stratosphere. My secondhand stove purchase paid for itself before the first winter was over.

My house is very old, but has good attic insulation and decent insulation in the walls. I've done all the crack-filling, etc., I can do without hiring a specialty contractor. It's any serious upgrading of insulation or windows that would make for horrible economics. I wouldn't be able to pay that off in savings on wood heat (what, a half a cord of wood out of the three I use annually at best savings?) for the rest of my life.

I love wood heat and the excercise of wrangling the fuel and all that, but even if I hated it, it would make economic/financial sense for me to heat this way 10 times over.

velvetfoot said:

I don't think this subject is addressed that much. Most times, it seems, there is talk of the room getting to 85F, etc.
Wood, is never free...it costs effort, if nothing else. And, when purchased, certainly is not cheap.

I can think of topics like:

-Easy ways to start a fire, so that fire would be more likely to let die, since it can be restarted easily
-More economical stoves-are Cat stoves inherently more economical?
-Ways of feeding - a log at a time or more massive cyclical loading?
-Accepting somewhat lower ambient temps in the stove area

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Couple thoughts. You don't say where you live, but firewood purchased is actually pretty cheap compared to other heating fuels in much of the country. If you're in metro suburbs, then yes, you're spending as much as twice what I am-- which would still be less than oil heat.

I find that splitting debris-- both what gets dumped in my yard along with the wood and the stuff I create myself when I split down those splits even further-- will start a fire from even the feeblest scattering of small coals. But I also use the SuperCedar firestarters, and a quarter of one will ignite a good load of wood from a cold start. It takes time to coax a fire into being from those few small coals and splitting debris, so when I don't have the time or patience, I use the SuperCedars. The only time I'm tempted to keep a fire going when I don't really need it is during the always troublesome "shoulder" seasons in spring and fall. Otherwise, I'm burning as close to 24/7 as I can anyway.

Cyclical loading is absolutely more efficient heating than a series of small loads. No question about that.

No idea what you mean by "accepting lower ambient temps in the stove area." Lower than what? That's where the heat is highest. Lower temps in the stove area means even lower temps away from the stove. So the issue isn't the temp in the stove area, it's whether your stove is the right size for the total area you're trying to heat. Personally, I have no urge to sit around in my undies in mid-winter, so 70 to 75 at most is what I like best. My small stove doesn't do much for my second floor bedrooms, but I like it cold when I'm sleeping, so that's fine with me.

Far as I know, cat stoves might have a very slight advantage in efficiency since they'll burn longer at lower temps for overnight or in those shoulder seasons, but I don't think it adds up to very much.

Saving money with wood heating:

- Scrounge all the wood you can for free. Purchase only when necessary.
- Thoroughly dry your firewood. DRY! Green wood freshly split takes more than 1 year to dry.
- Use large enough fuel loads to ensure that you will get things up to temperature quickly for secondary combustion (regardless of the cat or non-cat technology that achieves it) and keep that combustion going through to the coaling stage. This will be different for different stove designs, technology, size, etc. In my Oslo, there's a clear lower limit to the size of the fire that keeps good combustion efficiency through the entire cycle. One or two splits doesn't do it reliably.
- Use a good starting method that is easy, produces low smoke, and gets secondary combustion going as soon as possible. For my Oslo, that's the top-down method.
- Run the primary air only as high as you need it for warmth, or as high as you need it to keep good secondary combustion if there's a limit for your stove. For my Oslo, it runs great at minimum air.
- Keep the stove in good repair. If there are leaky gaskets, it will impact the airflow patterns that were carefully designed by the manufacturer or perhaps make it difficult to throttle the stove down enough.
- If the goal is to heat the whole house, the more you move the air around, the less wood you will burn in order to keep the coldest places warm enough.
- If there are areas you don't want to heat, close them off if you can.
- If buying wood, you can often buy green wood cheaper than "seasoned" wood. But be sure to dry it enough. Even "seasoned" firewood from most suppliers needs 6-9 months of additional drying.
- If buying wood, find a supplier who will deliver cheaper unsplit wood or even whole logs and do more of the work yourself.
- If buying wood by the cord, denser wood contains more BTUs, so if the price is the same, go for the mix of species that gives the highest density. If the price is different, you can figure out the wood cost in terms of $ per BTU. There are charts out there for BTU/cord for different species. My wood supplier sells different species mixes for different prices, and I can calculate whether, for example, the 100% oak that costs more than the 80/20 oak/maple mix is worth it or not.
- And finally, I'm not going to comment on relative pros and cons of different combustion technologies.

jotul8e2 said:

snowleopard said:

...
However, your benevolent climate isn't shared by everyone. I know folks who pay as much a month to heat their houses as you did in a year....

Click to expand...

So do I. Some of them live just up the road. Do not overstate the "benevolence" of our climate - we had two cold snaps where it dropped to -15 f. I know that is nothing compared to upper Minnesota, but it ain't Dixie either. The average 2000 sq. ft. house around here must cost a $150 per month for natural gas or $200 for propane over seven months a year. Many are much more. Note that all the figures I use are for heating only, not a total utility bill; around here the actual total utilities run about twice the heating cost itself. I worked very hard to make my house energy efficient but nothing I did is out of reach for anyone planning to spend significant amount of money on a wood burning system.

The point is that going to wood heat is, for most people, a very expensive process. And the payback, for most people is very long. And adding insulation, sealing gaps, improving windows, and stopping heat losses is the first best use of their money. Particularly where air conditioning is a major expense as well.

I am going through this at an 1800 sq. ft. house at 8600 ft. in Colorado. The previous owner went through 250 gallons of propane some months. I found only r-24 in half the attic, insulation missing in some wall cavities, door thresholds that you could actually see the yard through, and on and on. I'm not quite through, but I've spent about $1800 and rather a lot of time. Cans of spray foam, caulk, new door seals, fiberglass batts, cellular shades AND insulated close fitting drapes later the house has gone from more than 9 gallons of propane a day (in the most extreme weather) to just barely under three. This is at least a $300 per month saving over three months per year, and $100 to $150 per month for maybe five more months. I have not even thought of a wood burning stove yet.

So, again, I will assert that the best efficiency in burning wood a heat source is achieved by first making sure the house will stand a reasonable chance of keeping that heat in.

Click to expand...

Agree with your point about insulating . . . not so sure about woodheat having that long a payback . . . guess it depends on where you are (north vs. south climates), heat source (cheaper natural gas vs. heating oil vs. electricity for heat pumps) and how you get your wood supply (family land, scrounge or bought at a premium). I know in my case at today's price I would have paid $2,104 to heat my house this year ($3.62 per gallon) . . . that right there is pretty much the cost of my woodstove . . . in another year I would have "paid off" the chimney and install . . . and since this is Year 3 I would have been good this year . . . with just a small cost of gasoline for my saw, splitter, truck, ATV, etc. . . . if I had not bought my splitter in Year 2 . . . which means in fact next year my wood "costs" should be just the minimal costs of chains, oil, gasoline, etc. which I guarantee you will be less than $2k . . . of course this all goes out the window if I opt to buy a new saw, wood "toys", etc. Burning wood has its expense and the pay off could be long . . . for some . . . not so much for me. . . . of course it also helps that I already had the truck, trailer, ATV, saw, etc.

Several people have mentioned payback time with wood heat.

This assumes that people have a perfectly good non wood heating system.

Were I to install a new gas system in my house the furnace would cost about $6000 plus pipework and radiators. Modern furnaces here have to be computer controlled, and all the control mechanisms are close to the furnace itself, which means they get very warm. Constantly warming and cooling means the electrics on them tend to have a life expectancy of about 3 - 5 years, with a replacement cost of about $1500.
Don't say anything, I know it sounds really crappy, but to get the gas efficiency savings that the EU demands, you buy a new control system every few years.

With our wood stove, it really is just a space heater, with no electrics at all. The downside is that it heats just the lounge, with some heat going off upstairs to warm the bedrooms slightly (which is enough if you want a warm lounge and a not too hot bedroom).

The economics and payback time on natural gas and electric savings means we are already planning to install a second identical wood stove in our dining room. This will give us commonality of parts, and one of the things we plan to do at the same time is buy spare glass for the door as a couple of people we know have cracked the glass (not sure if it's carelessness or overfiring or just a hazard).

I cannot think of a cheaper way of keeping warm. And as I said above, we not only save on bills (pre wood gas was £$1200 a year and electric was $500 a year) dropping now to gas $400 a year and electric under $200 a year.
The woodstove cost $750 including installation (most of the work I did myself), and the fuel is free, so payback time was under 9 months.

Yes, 9 months payback time.

New super efficient gas furnace is about 22 years payback against the old one (and that excludes buying a new control panel every 4 years on average at $1500 and ignores inevitable gas price rises).............

As to trying to operate a woodstove economically, I have spent years being chilly and spending a fortune in the process whilst trying to be economical.

I'm now warm for free.

For the first time in my life I don't have to scrimp and save trying to be stingy and efficient.

Yippee!