A discussion on the heating cost of wood versus oil, propane, electric

[CarbonNeutral]

In my time on this forum (a youngster of a year and a bit) I've seen the relative cost of wood heating versus other methods come up a few times. I thought I'd make a few points as an attempt to consolidate my opinions, and maybe provide a link when the subject inevitably comes up again. Too often the discussion revolves around cost per therm/btu/whatever, but that conversation so often misses other points

Differences between heating with wood and other sources (pellets have the benefits of wood for many of these):

1. Reduced area. You don't heat an entire house or floor: I close doors, and use curtains to close off areas of the house we use less often. Just by closing the curtains to the dining room and spare bedroom, I am dropping my sq. ft. by about 400 - almost a quarter of my house that now isn't heated. Of course there's still heat loss into these rooms, but I'm definitely dropping my effective sq ft of heating. With other heating you often you have control via thermostat of a floor at a time. While you can close vents on baseboard heat and air supplies for forced hot air, I've never found the rooms get as cold as when I simply shut them off completely.

2. Focal heating. There is a gradient of heat through the house. While this takes getting used to I like it - our living room is positively warm, while other rooms hover in the mid to high 60s, at least through the morning and afternoon. I much prefer this than resenting the heating coming on to keep the house at 68 degrees

3. Heating when you're home: There are peaks and valleys in heating - while the first hour after getting up can be cool, the heating follows our activity in the house much more than if I'd set a thermostat.

4. Green and foreign policy aspect - for some of us it's a lifestyle choice, whether the cost is equitable or not - reducing reliance on fossil fuels and using a more sustainable (if still far from perfect) fuel

5. Heat (and heat for cooking) when the power is out.

Of course there's then the usual conversation about free wood - I get mine for free, but even if the cost was near equitable, I would still choose to heat with wood. As it happens I think that once you get beyond a therm to therm comparison (and even then wood does well even with the low price of gas at the moment) the benefits above must be taken into account.

 

[firefighterjake]

Not to get too far off tangent with this thread and its stated purpose . . . but the one thing you discovered is something our forefathers realized a long time ago when it comes to containing the heat in a space. There is a reason many older homes have lower ceilings, smaller rooms and more of a closed, compartmentalized look with more doors -- all factors which help when heating a home and keepng the heat in the areas where people want the most heat.

 

[shawneyboy]

When I purchased my stove I purchased it to heat my entire home, almost 2000 square feet. I live in a heavily wooded are on a heavily wooded lot. Wood is abundant here, Oak and Maple being the main species. Needless to say I collect and process my own wood. As far as cost is concerned, the choices for heat in my area are, heating oil (I have), propane, pellet, coal, or cord wood. Because of the abundance of wood, even if I were to buy what they call "seasoned" OAK ( moisture content in the high 20's to low 30's) it costs between 150-200 a cord. Even then, it would be far less expensive on a year to year basis than heating oil. Now because I collect and process my own wood, I have so other expenses that I would not otherwise have, but even then wood is by FAR much less expensive over the long run than heating oil.

10 Years ago my oil cost me less than a buck a gallon, the last fill up I had which was in JULY 2010 it was 2.359 per gallon. It has since gone up and most likely will while fluctuating in price continue to climb. I have burned wood at other locations with other appliances, this is my first year with this stove in this home, I will be anal this year and be making a comparison of heating costs. I can say without a doubt that my costs will be substantially lower, without taking into consideration the other benefits that I receive, not the least of which is a more comfortable and warmer house.

It really depends many factors, the big one being is NG available to you, as seen in another thread....

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/62420/

But for me personally it will cost less and..... there is a great deal of satisfaction knowing I am not shoveling hand-fulls of money to the fuel oil company when I already own so much fuel out back.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

In my time on this forum (a youngster of a year and a bit) I've seen the relative cost of wood heating versus other methods come up a few times.

A youngster on this forum but no youngster in your knowledge on wood burning.



I thought I'd make a few points as an attempt to consolidate my opinions, and maybe provide a link when the subject inevitably comes up again. Too often the discussion revolves around cost per therm/btu/whatever, but that conversation so often misses other points

Differences between heating with wood and other sources (pellets have the benefits of wood for many of these):

1. Reduced area. You don't heat an entire house or floor: I close doors, and use curtains to close off areas of the house we use less often. Just by closing the curtains to the dining room and spare bedroom, I am dropping my sq. ft. by about 400 - almost a quarter of my house that now isn't heated. Of course there's still heat loss into these rooms, but I'm definitely dropping my effective sq ft of heating. With other heating you often you have control via thermostat of a floor at a time. While you can close vents on baseboard heat and air supplies for forced hot air, I've never found the rooms get as cold as when I simply shut them off completely.

What do you mean reduced area? I'm like Brother Bart. The space I want to heat is my house; the whole house. I see no reason that can't be done.



2. Focal heating. There is a gradient of heat through the house. While this takes getting used to I like it - our living room is positively warm, while other rooms hover in the mid to high 60s, at least through the morning and afternoon. I much prefer this than resenting the heating coming on to keep the house at 68 degrees

True there can be a difference in different rooms and that can be good. However, with the strategic use of a fan or two, that gradient can be very small indeed. I also appreciate the fact that we can keep out living room at, say, 80 degrees, but still keep the bedroom a few degrees cooler.



3. Heating when you're home: There are peaks and valleys in heating - while the first hour after getting up can be cool, the heating follows our activity in the house much more than if I'd set a thermostat.

Not entirely true. Many times when we get up in the morning it is just as comfortable in the house as it is during mid-day. Yes, sometimes, like this morning it was different because we let the stove go out yesterday. Still, within an hour the temperature was right back up there. The last time wood had been put in the stove was approximately 7:00 am Monday and at 7:00 am this morning there were still hot coals; enough to get the stove going and the temperature rose quite fast. Still we were not uncomfortable when we got up.


4. Green and foreign policy aspect - for some of us it's a lifestyle choice, whether the cost is equitable or not - reducing reliance on fossil fuels and using a more sustainable (if still far from perfect) fuel

Burning wood as long as we have we don't think much when it comes to the green thing. Still I do remember those few years when the oil man used to park his truck in our driveway every so often and now I thank God he has found other parking spots and stays clear of our driveway. Burning wood is just one of those things we've done so long it is just part of life....and a part we do not intend to do without.



5. Heat (and heat for cooking) when the power is out.

Yes, another great benefit to be enjoyed; by us and our neighbors who come to visit when they are cold.


Of course there's then the usual conversation about free wood - I get mine for free, but even if the cost was near equitable, I would still choose to heat with wood. As it happens I think that once you get beyond a therm to therm comparison (and even then wood does well even with the low price of gas at the moment) the benefits above must be taken into account.

We rarely compare any more; we just enjoy the heat. We also just take a drive in our woods to pick out which tree gets cut down next.

 

[Got Wood]

I'll start off by saying I absolutely enjoy and value heating with wood. This is a REALLY ROUGH estimate of my financial business case...

I figure I have cut my oil usage by roughly 750 gallons/yr (still use it for hot water and the rare occasion it kicks on to heat) - From arguements sake lets say it costs $3/gallon (saw$2.65 advertised the other day) ... thats a $2250/savings per year. Pretty nice chunk.

Now lets look at my expenses....
Install of FPX 44 ran me $7k
Purchased Chain Saw/chains $400
Purchased safety gear $200
Purchased chain sharpener - $30
Purchased Fiskars and then Huskee 22 ton - call it $800 (got a deal)
Purchased yard cart to move wood $60
Purchased box of Super Cedars $55
Im sure I have missed some purchases.... lets add it up and round to $8600
I scrounge 100% of my wood, lets assume consumables like gas(saw and transport) and oil run $10/cord (total guess)... from what I have been doing/year I'll say $120/yr.
That leaves roughly $2200/yr in savings.
Need to cover the $8600 in purchases - roughly 4 years to break even.

There are many non Financials factors involved which lean heavily in favor of wood heat for me.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

And at the end of those roughly 4 years what will you have?

You'll still have that stove and it will continue to serve you for many more years.
No more install expense but only minimal expenses involved with cleaning and replacing gaskets.
The saw will still be worth way over half of its original cost.
The safety gear will still be there to use.
The chain sharpener will still be there to use.
The Fiskars might be thrown in the trash and you will find yourself buying that hydraulic splitter you should have bought asap.
The yard cart will still be used for other things too.
You'll still have some of that box of Super Cedars left to use.
You'll still be scrounging and by then it will be a habit and possible could be described as a hobby.
You will have enjoyed keeping your house nice and warm rather than having to purchase extra winter clothing.

I'd say your financial factors will be outweighed by a whole lot even before those 4 years.

 

[Got Wood]

And at the end of those roughly 4 years what will you have?

You'll still have that stove and it will continue to serve you for many more years.
No more install expense but only minimal expenses involved with cleaning and replacing gaskets.
The saw will still be worth way over half of its original cost.
The safety gear will still be there to use.
The chain sharpener will still be there to use.
The Fiskars might be thrown in the trash and you will find yourself buying that hydraulic splitter you should have bought asap.
The yard cart will still be used for other things too.
You'll still have some of that box of Super Cedars left to use.
You'll still be scrounging and by then it will be a habit and possible could be described as a hobby.
You will have enjoyed keeping your house nice and warm rather than having to purchase extra winter clothing.

I'd say your financial factors will be outweighed by a whole lot even before those 4 years.

No doubt about it

 

[CarbonNeutral]

A youngster on this forum but no youngster in your knowledge on wood burning.


Appreciated, and from a master...




What do you mean reduced area? I'm like Brother Bart. The space I want to heat is my house; the whole house. I see no reason that can't be done.[/b]

Yes, I could, but there's just no need for me to heat these rooms all the time - this should flow through to slightly less wood used. One of my rooms is really remote, so even with fans, closing it off is the better option (or putting another stove in there....)

 

[CarbonNeutral]

And at the end of those roughly 4 years what will you have?


The Fiskars might be thrown in the trash and you will find yourself buying that hydraulic splitter you should have bought asap.

Hey, I resemble that statement!

 

[Highbeam]

Another forgotten item is duct losses. The btu to btu comparisons use appliance efficiencies. That's fine if your furnace is in your living room with no ductwork. Ductwork typically adds a 15% penalty for those systems unlike a stove which delivers 100% of the produced btus.

Physical activity. It is all too easy to set down in front of the TV after adjusting the stat on the wall. I worked all day, my earnings more than cover the cost of that furnace fuel. Taking the time and effort to start the nightly fire, move the wood, and put up the seasons wood are all physical activity that benefit the operator.

 

[firefighterjake]

Just realized that I went off tangent and didn't make a reply directly to this thread in my earlier post. In my time on this forum (a youngster of a year and a bit) I've seen the relative cost of wood heating versus other methods come up a few times. I thought I'd make a few points as an attempt to consolidate my opinions, and maybe provide a link when the subject inevitably comes up again. Too often the discussion revolves around cost per therm/btu/whatever, but that conversation so often misses other points

Differences between heating with wood and other sources (pellets have the benefits of wood for many of these):

1. Reduced area. You don't heat an entire house or floor: I close doors, and use curtains to close off areas of the house we use less often. Just by closing the curtains to the dining room and spare bedroom, I am dropping my sq. ft. by about 400 - almost a quarter of my house that now isn't heated. Of course there's still heat loss into these rooms, but I'm definitely dropping my effective sq ft of heating. With other heating you often you have control via thermostat of a floor at a time. While you can close vents on baseboard heat and air supplies for forced hot air, I've never found the rooms get as cold as when I simply shut them off completely. While I agree that you can conserve heat by closing doors to unused rooms I disagree that you cannot heat an entire house or even a floor. In my own 1,800 square foot home I pretty much heat the entire place with a woodstove . . . to be fair though I do have a back up oil boiler set at 60 degrees . . . and in the dead of winter I have an electric space heater on a thermostat set up to keep my oil boiler and water pipes from freezing . . . other than that it is definitely possible to heat an entire home providing the lay-out is good and you buy the right sized stove.

2. Focal heating. There is a gradient of heat through the house. While this takes getting used to I like it - our living room is positively warm, while other rooms hover in the mid to high 60s, at least through the morning and afternoon. I much prefer this than resenting the heating coming on to keep the house at 68 degrees. I am curious if you use a fan to move the heat around the house . . . I only ask this since there is a difference in temps in the house . . . the living room with the stove is always the warmest, but as you move outwards the temp is usually not so great . . . a few degrees difference . . . except for the master bedroom which due to the house design is notably cooler and the boiler room.

3. Heating when you're home: There are peaks and valleys in heating - while the first hour after getting up can be cool, the heating follows our activity in the house much more than if I'd set a thermostat. When I first started to look at woodstoves I read a lot about this temp difference . . . and to be honest I don't see it as much. I mean, sure, the house often is cooler on a January morning when the temps overnight were below the donut . . . but in a normal day or evening I don't find myself sweating to death in one hour and then piling on the sweatshirts a few hours later . . . for me the house is almost always in the high 60s to low 70s . . . a bit warmer in the living room . . . a bit cooler in the master bedroom.

4. Green and foreign policy aspect - for some of us it's a lifestyle choice, whether the cost is equitable or not - reducing reliance on fossil fuels and using a more sustainable (if still far from perfect) fuel. I agree 100% with you here. Originally I did this to save money when heating oil prices were $4 per gallon . . . plus we occasionally lose power. Now I do it for those reasons . . . but also because I like the idea of being a little more independent from foreign oil.

5. Heat (and heat for cooking) when the power is out. I concur . . . although the funny thing is I've never cooked on my stove.

Of course there's then the usual conversation about free wood - I get mine for free, but even if the cost was near equitable, I would still choose to heat with wood. As it happens I think that once you get beyond a therm to therm comparison (and even then wood does well even with the low price of gas at the moment) the benefits above must be taken into account. There rarely is such a thing as "free" wood since one still needs to pay for gas to haul the wood, a saw to buck it up, etc. . . . but having access to a low cost, plentiful fuel supply definitely made my decision to go with wood vs. other heating fuels much easier.

 

[CarbonNeutral]

Agree with Highbeam - even baseboard heating will have losses in areas where you don't want heat.

FFJake, yep, we have fans, just the one remote room that's trickier, and rarely used. The Jotul, considering we were limited where it went, does an excellent job. The -20 mornings are going to be colder - we don't have the boiler on at all now, but we will probably use it in the dead of winter to lift the temps quickly in the morning.

And you, of course, are right that the wood isn't free even when it's 'free'

 

[Dune]

I obviously live on Cape Cod. The cape is basicaly summer resort area. We have gradualy, slowly built a year round economy, but not really. There is usualy some work until just after christmas, but not always.
Producing my own firewood is a form of employment for me. The elderly lady I bought the house from never saw $1.00 a gallon oil prices. When I moved in, the attic had 1 1/2 inches of crumbled fiberglass (average, thinner in some places). I put six inch batts over my then young sons bedroom in the first year or two. The money I have saved over the years is impressive, and improved our quality of life here. Some bad winters I couldn't afford a minimum oil purchase and would buy 5 gallons of diesel at a time. Inevitibly we would run out, and the wife would complain bitterly about the cold house. The feeling of being powerless was overwelming. There was nothing I could do to create heat, other than have and spend money. Now, having stacks and piles and a wood shed I have heat in the bank. I don't have a big investment in wood heat other than time. Most of my chainsaws were used. I built the big splitter from mostly found parts. I paid $100 for the 10 H.P. single phase electric motor, and $100 for a hydraulic cylinder from a D-8 Cat. My stove, though old, is a gassifier and very efficient. A former apprentice who now is a welder at a nuclear power plant helped me convert it to a boiler, using a principle very similar to http://www.hilkoil.com/. We used a bit more pipe than HilKoil, plus the stove radiantly heats part of the houe. My brother, a heating contracter helped with the needed safety features, and the guys in the boiler room, and an engineering forum helped me figure out how to tie it in to my centall heating system effiently. No unpleasent (or otherwise) temperature gradients here. Free domestic hot water is a bonus, with two teenagers and a wife, I save a ton of money on that alone. Having that money, I was able to upgrade the ceiling insulation to six inches throughout. With the economy in the shape that it is in now, the value of wood heat is even more magnified for me. I do know that using no fossil fuels at all causes the savings to be much greater than if I were using wood to supplement. Continuing on this journey, my goal is to eventually derive all my energy needs from wood, including electricity for the home and shop, and energy for the family vehicles as well, in the form of electricity.

 

[CarbonNeutral]

Talking about free wood, I just had to go outside and tell my tree guy who delivers wood here that I couldn't cope with any more. Turns out it was willow, so pleased to not have to deal with that. Feel bad about turning them away, but my house looks hillbilly enough as it is.

 

[jeff_t]

I went back to burning wood because that was was the only way we were gonna stay warm. I can afford to buy gas now, but I won't. We've never been so comfortable. When we have guest they always whine about being hot, and when we go to someone else's home, we know to take sweatshirts. You can't put a price on that :lol:

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Another forgotten item is duct losses. The btu to btu comparisons use appliance efficiencies. That's fine if your furnace is in your living room with no ductwork. Ductwork typically adds a 15% penalty for those systems unlike a stove which delivers 100% of the produced btus.

Sorry but I have to speak up on this commonly referenced "duct work heat loss". It could be true if for some reason your duct work runs through some un-insulated area of your house, but if the duct work is situated inside the insulated envelope of the house the heat will stay within that envelope (to whatever extent the building is insulated). Certainly with no warm air blowing through the ducts they will cool to the ambient temperature of the house, but it is exactly that cooling process that gives off it's stored up heat. When the warm air blows again it will take a while to warm the ducts, this is where people think that the ducts rob heat, but once they reach the temperature of the warm air the they have neutral effect until the air stops blowing, then they actually give off residual heat once again until the cycle begins again.
Basically there are 4 parts to the heating cycle;
(1) the ducts are neutral ambient temperature of the room.
(2) the warm heated air begins blowing through the ducts and the ducts are warming up while absorbing heat from the heated air. (This is the part that is often mentioned without taking into consideration the other 3 parts)
(3) Ducts have warmed up and reached the temperature of the heated air. They are no longer absorbing heat from the system.
(4) The warm air stops blowing and the duct begin to shed the excess residual heat until the reach ambient room temperature again.

Metal ducts by themselves can't absorb heat into nothingness, (I believe only black holes can do that) they can only store or transfer heat.

If I'm wrong please explain what I'm missing.
Sorry if I'm taking the thread off course, but I've seen this mentioned so many times in this forum (and now in this thread) and unless the ducts run outside the insulated envelope of the building the physics of it just don't hold true.

 

[kenny chaos]

Here we are again caveman.
The #1 reason for burning firewood? It's cheaper.
Accessory validations are moot.

 

[Highbeam]

Ah but the ducts do run outside the heated space. Mostly, usually, etc. It is of course possible to run the ductwork inside the house but that would be at the expense of living space. It is much easier to run the ductwork in the crawlspace and in the attic which is typical here in my part of the country. Didn't you read the part where I said "typically" and "unless you have no ductwork" which is essentially what you have if your ducts are built into the living space.

When the ducts are run oustide the living space the leaks are a big heat loss and the minimal insulation of the ductwork is also a factor.

 

[kenny chaos]

Ah but the ducts do run outside the heated space. Mostly, usually, etc. It is of course possible to run the ductwork inside the house but that would be at the expense of living space. It is much easier to run the ductwork in the crawlspace and in the attic which is typical here in my part of the country. Didn't you read the part where I said "typically" and "unless you have no ductwork" which is essentially what you have if your ducts are built into the living space.

When the ducts are run oustide the living space the leaks are a big heat loss and the minimal insulation of the ductwork is also a factor.

But you're comparing a whole house system with a space heater.

 

[Highbeam]

Ah but the ducts do run outside the heated space. Mostly, usually, etc. It is of course possible to run the ductwork inside the house but that would be at the expense of living space. It is much easier to run the ductwork in the crawlspace and in the attic which is typical here in my part of the country. Didn't you read the part where I said "typically" and "unless you have no ductwork" which is essentially what you have if your ducts are built into the living space.

When the ducts are run oustide the living space the leaks are a big heat loss and the minimal insulation of the ductwork is also a factor.

But you're comparing a whole house system with a space heater.

Yes sir. Check out the title of this thread. Do you really think the intent was to compare oil stoves, propane stoves, and electric stoves?

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Ah but the ducts do run outside the heated space. Mostly, usually, etc. It is of course possible to run the ductwork inside the house but that would be at the expense of living space.

Hmmm? Well not here they don't. I've seen some pretty weird things in old houses, (heck some of them don't even have insulation), but any new construction I've seen (been involved in construction for over 30 years) they make sure HVAC ducts run inside the insulated envelope. Drop ceilings, insulated crawl spaces, etc.... even attic ducts runs get installed and insulated in such a way heat loss is minimal. What ever it takes, but running heating ducts outside the insulated envelope is madness. Might as well not even bother to shut your doors, just crank the heat up a little more, what's another few % heat loss. ;-P

 

[nate379]

Sure but most of that stuff you don't "need"

Install of FPX 44 ran me $7k
Blaze King was $5000

Purchased Chain Saw/chains $400
Yup

Purchased safety gear $200
Safety Gear? Already have many pairs of boots and earplugs are free from work.

Purchased chain sharpener - $30
$5 for a file

Purchased Fiskars and then Huskee 22 ton - call it $800 (got a deal)
$25 for a splitting maul at Wall mart

Purchased yard cart to move wood $60
Paid $40 for mine and use it for all sorts of other things anyhow.

Purchased box of Super Cedars $55
Nope. Newspaper works and cut up starter logs work fine in the shoulder season.

So that is ~$5500.

I'll start off by saying I absolutely enjoy and value heating with wood. This is a REALLY ROUGH estimate of my financial business case...

I figure I have cut my oil usage by roughly 750 gallons/yr (still use it for hot water and the rare occasion it kicks on to heat) - From arguements sake lets say it costs $3/gallon (saw$2.65 advertised the other day) ... thats a $2250/savings per year. Pretty nice chunk.

Now lets look at my expenses....
Install of FPX 44 ran me $7k
Purchased Chain Saw/chains $400
Purchased safety gear $200
Purchased chain sharpener - $30
Purchased Fiskars and then Huskee 22 ton - call it $800 (got a deal)
Purchased yard cart to move wood $60
Purchased box of Super Cedars $55
Im sure I have missed some purchases.... lets add it up and round to $8600
I scrounge 100% of my wood, lets assume consumables like gas(saw and transport) and oil run $10/cord (total guess)... from what I have been doing/year I'll say $120/yr.
That leaves roughly $2200/yr in savings.
Need to cover the $8600 in purchases - roughly 4 years to break even.

There are many non Financials factors involved which lean heavily in favor of wood heat for me.

 

[kenny chaos]

Ah but the ducts do run outside the heated space. Mostly, usually, etc. It is of course possible to run the ductwork inside the house but that would be at the expense of living space. It is much easier to run the ductwork in the crawlspace and in the attic which is typical here in my part of the country. Didn't you read the part where I said "typically" and "unless you have no ductwork" which is essentially what you have if your ducts are built into the living space.

When the ducts are run oustide the living space the leaks are a big heat loss and the minimal insulation of the ductwork is also a factor.

But you're comparing a whole house system with a space heater.

Yes sir. Check out the title of this thread. Do you really think the intent was to compare oil stoves, propane stoves, and electric stoves?

I can't get my head around this.
Because of poor construction practices it's cheaper to run a space heater than a furnace?
Seems like even with a 110% efficient furnace properly installed, it would still be cheaper to run a space heater.

 

[Highbeam]

Yes, it is usually more efficient to run a space heater. Zone heating, no duct loss. The 15% duct loss figure is a commonly accepted figure.

I have been in many many new houses being constructed, I am a civil engineer working with developers, and the modern method of construction in my part of the country is uninsulated crawlspace, and an attic space with the ceiling insulated with loose blown in insulation. This leaves the unheated and uninsulated attic and crawlspace to run the ducts. Most often 100% preinsulated flex duct in an octopus configuration. We don't build basements and don't use drop ceilings. It's not poor practice, it meets all codes and is just the way it is done here. I fully agree that a superior build would include rigid ducts inside the heated space, you just won't find it done that way here in modern construction.

It is cheaper to build a home with high duct loss. This decision means greater fuel costs for the life of the home. Cheaper construction cost while still meeting code is a way for the builder to maximize profit. Do you really expect them to leave that money on the table?

 

[stejus]

Here's my math comparing two heating seasons and Wood heat beats Oil.

2007/2008 Oil Usage (749 gallons oil at $2514) This was forced hot water heat and hot water.
2009/2010 Oil Usage (290 gallons oil at $795) This was for hot water. Add in $540 for wood and maybe $100 for blower and fans. Total $1435.

Year 1 Oil ($2514) - Year 2 Wood & Oil ($1435) = $1079 savings. Plus, the house is much warmer now with wood 24x7 than it was with oil heat