The cost savings of wood burning

[eastcoastcanada]

What are your monthly electric bills? They must be up there, with electric heat?

I think it would run me about $25-30/day for just heat if I were to run my electric boiler full time.

9.710 cents per Kwh. My bill was $362 for November and $407 for December and it just started getting cold here. That's a family of five, washer and dryer never stop, 18000 btu mini-split heat pump handling main floor kitchen & living area, led bulbs everywhere and we do what we can to save energy except freeze our butts off. I'm hoping the wood stove will cut the bill by $150 to $200 per month.

 

[maple1]

I'm thinking you should be able to do better than that, maybe. When we had 5 here (2 are now out to college), we were at around $220-230/mo. while heating DHW electrically but not space heating. Our rates are $10/mo base + $0.15/kwh. There's good info in the other threads re. electricity consumption.

 

[semipro]

I'm reminded often of the "security" aspect of burning wood.
We've been burning pellets lately as primary heat using the Jotul on nights and weekends. We were hit yet again by a power outage, this time only 8 hours. It was quite cold outside.
Though the pellets stove remained dark, we cranked up the Jotul and keep is stoked. It was very comforting to watch the stove crank away knowing that as long as we had a pile of wood accessible outside we'd be warm and pipes would remain unfrozen.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

I'm reminded often of the "security" aspect of burning wood.
We've been burning pellets lately as primary heat using the Jotul on nights and weekends. We were hit yet again by a power outage, this time only 8 hours. It was quite cold outside.
Though the pellets stove remained dark, we cranked up the Jotul and keep is stoked. It was very comforting to watch the stove crank away knowing that as long as we had a pile of wood accessible outside we'd be warm and pipes would remain unfrozen.

Good point about the independence/security achieved through wood burning.

I would not burn just for the money savings but, if I were heating primarily with electric resistance heat, I couldn't relax knowing how much it was costing to really warm the cabin (there is no natural gas and I have no desire to install an oil or propane tank). Plus, I do like the woodcutting activity.

As far as expensing the equipment, I don't get that. I have a Stihl 026 with 16" and 18" bars from 1997 and some splitting mauls, wedges, peavy, etc, that I've had forever. The gas/oil are the primary expenses, the new saw was only $325. A chain easily lasts me 20-30 cords, both bars are still going strong, and the saw has been 100% reliable for 20 years other than needing a new fuel pick-up a couple of years ago (1/2 hour repair once I researched it). And I use it regularly for tasks other than cutting firewood. I did replace the sparkplug once, but only because I had never done so. It didn't run any differently with the new plug so I saved the old one as a spare. I would need a chainsaw whether I burned wood or not so I don't count the initial purchase price. I mean trees grow and trees fall, without a saw you're helpless.

My Stihl 026 starts on the third or fourth pull every time (first pull when it's warm) and has more power/rpms than when it was new. I brush/vac the airfilter every 4-5 cords and tension/sharpen the chain lightly each serious cutting session but the main maintenance task is the constant filling with gas/oil and bar oil. Even then, I bet my truck uses more fuel for firewood than the saw. I run the expensive Stihl synthetic pre-mix with standard 89 octane pump gas (10% alcohol). I leave it in there 24/7 unless I just happen to run out when I'm done cutting in which case I'll store it empty. Otherwise I fill it up when I'm done cutting. Good equipment properly used and cared for doesn't cost much in the big picture, the oil/gas can add up though.

 

[Dobish]

Good point about the independence/security achieved through wood burning.

I would not burn just for the money savings but, if I were heating primarily with electric resistance heat, I couldn't relax knowing how much it was costing to really warm the cabin (there is no natural gas and I have no desire to install an oil or propane tank). Plus, I do like the woodcutting activity.

As far as expensing the equipment, I don't get that. I have a Stihl 026 with 16" and 18" bars from 1997 and some splitting mauls, wedges, peavy, etc, that I've had forever. The gas/oil are the primary expenses, the new saw was only $325. A chain easily lasts me 20-30 cords, both bars are still going strong, and the saw has been 100% reliable for 20 years other than needing a new fuel pick-up a couple of years ago (1/2 hour repair once I researched it). And I use it regularly for tasks other than cutting firewood. I did replace the sparkplug once, but only because I had never done so. It didn't run any differently with the new plug so I saved the old one as a spare. I would need a chainsaw whether I burned wood or not so I don't count the initial purchase price. I mean trees grow and trees fall, without a saw you're helpless.

My Stihl 026 starts on the third or fourth pull every time (first pull when it's warm) and has more power/rpms than when it was new. I brush/vac the airfilter every 4-5 cords and tension/sharpen the chain lightly each serious cutting session but the main maintenance task is the constant filling with gas/oil and bar oil. Even then, I bet my truck uses more fuel for firewood than the saw. I run the expensive Stihl synthetic pre-mix with standard 89 octane pump gas (10% alcohol). I leave it in there 24/7 unless I just happen to run out when I'm done cutting in which case I'll store it empty. Otherwise I fill it up when I'm done cutting. Good equipment properly used and cared for doesn't cost much in the big picture, the oil/gas can add up though.

i really only have a depreciation schedule since my accountant told me to I am able to write off some of the costs associated with wood/related equipment since it is necessary to maintain the property and reduce damage to the rental property.....

 

[venator260]

Good equipment properly used and cared for doesn't cost much in the big picture, the oil/gas can add up though.

I've thought about this. I'd like to break out the fuel costs for getting a cord of wood from standing trees to my basement. I can't think that it's a huge amount. It wouldn't take more than a tank of diesel through the tractor to drag it in, a tank in the saw to cut it up, a tank of gas in the splitter, and very little in the ATV for the final trip. So, what, 50-60 bucks at the absolute most to get a cord of wood properly located and ready to burn? That is, again, probably a vast overestimation in the fuel used in the spiltter and tractor

It certainly beats heating my current house totally with the electric baseboard. That would run into the hundreds of dollars per month.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

I have no idea how much gas a splitter uses since I've always hand split. But that brings up another point. I know I eat a bigger steak after I've been splitting/stacking wood, and probably drink an extra beer. Am I supposed to add in the extra cost of the steak and beer?

I do know I have never cut and limbed a cord of wood with only one tank using any saw, especially if the trees started as standing timber. But my saw only holds one pint of fuel so I get about 9-12 fill-ups from a gallon depending upon how empty I let it get. My very rough estimate on saw fuel per every cut and limbed cord of wood would be closer to 1/2 gallon. But's it's more on larger diameter trees and hardwoods vs. small softwood.

But my truck only get 19 mpg and I probably burn 3-4 gallons/cord in that. I can't imagine dragging a few trees across even a relatively large property taps out the fuel tank in your diesel tractor though. How much does it hold?

 

[venator260]

I have no idea how much gas a splitter uses since I've always hand split. But that brings up another point. I know I eat a bigger steak after I've been splitting/stacking wood, and probably drink an extra beer. Am I supposed to add in the extra cost of the steak and beer?

I do know I have never cut and limbed a cord of wood with only one tank using any saw, especially if the trees started as standing timber. But my saw only holds one pint of fuel so I get about 9-12 fill-ups from a gallon depending upon how empty I let it get. My very rough estimate on saw fuel per every cut and limbed cord of wood would be closer to 1/2 gallon. But's it's more on larger diameter trees and hardwoods vs. small softwood.

But my truck only get 19 mpg and I probably burn 3-4 gallons/cord in that. I can't imagine dragging a few trees across even a relatively large property taps out the fuel tank in your diesel tractor though. How much does it hold?

Hm... Seems I didn't think about cutting and limbing... we'll say two tanks there. Or perhaps more. I'm beginning to see I ought to keep track of stuff... I may be wildly off on the saw gas estimate. Husky's website says my saw holds 1.4 pints. It seem to be more efficient than older saws in its class (Husky 562XP). I'm thinking too of the EAB killed ash that I've been dealing with for awhile. Not too much limbing with those trees. Certainly nothing like a big oak with a large crown, I'd burn through quite a bit more getting one of those ready to drag out.

The tractor holds 11 gallons. Seems to be pretty good on fuel. I can drag all day on a Saturday and not fill up. Come to think of it, I drug all day on less than a tank of fuel, and was able to drag out a good bit of wood; 3-4 10x10 ranks of 18 inch long wood. That was with a 3 point skidding attachment with a winch, so I was a bit more efficient. I could pull out 4-5 smaller ash trees (didn't make the cut for saleable timber). The drag was downhill or flat; that helped. The property, all told, is about 85 acres, roughly in a square.

The splitter I have access to is probably a bit less efficient than most. My dad built it from an old '60's era 2 cylinder Wisconsin engine and a cylinder off of a garbage truck.

As I said, I'd like to keep track of this, as these were just armchair estimates. I'm willing to admit to being off on this by a good bit. Still, I'd need to be wrong by several times those numbers for me to rethink getting as much of my heat as I can from wood. I think my next cheapest option would be to get my coal stove back into operation. A cord of wood would need to cost me about $250.00 to make that worth it (anthracite, locally, runs about $275 a ton if you haul). Now, that math works a bit different when is rather cold out, as coal has advantages there (even heat, longer burns).

And, as others have said in this thread, there are intangible benefits that I like as well. I like the process of cutting wood. I like having some form of energy independence. I like that wood heat is environmentally friendlier than other forms of heat. And I like fiddling with the stove.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Come to think of it, I drug all day on less than a tank of fuel, and was able to drag out a good bit of wood; 3-4 10x10 ranks of 18 inch long wood. That was with a 3 point skidding attachment with a winch, so I was a bit more efficient.

We don't have "ranks" out West so I have no idea how much that is. "10x10 ranks"? You might as well be speaking Russian!

 

[venator260]

We don't have "ranks" out West so I have no idea how much that is. "10x10 ranks"? You might as well be speaking Russian!

Ha. I'm using ranks as a synonym for stacks.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

Coal is 275$ a ton Holy balls. 35/ you pick up at mine.

 

[venator260]

Coal is 275$ a ton Holy balls. 35/ you pick up at mine.

I'm assuming that's $350. If 350, that makes sense, I'm pretty close to the pa anthracite region, so lower price. Peeling around the coal forum, folks closer to mines are able to do better, especially if they drive to the breaker.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

No. 35$ 70 delivered

 

[venator260]

Hard or soft? Either way, that's pretty cheap.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

Western nd lignite

 

[venator260]

Western nd lignite

There's the difference.

The price I gave was for anthracite. Bituminous would be cheaper, and lignite cheaper yet. I've read up on burning bit coal at NEPA Crossroads because I can get both. Anthracite seems easier. Not sure how lignite would be.

 

[begreen]

My understanding is that lignite is the dirtiest of the three. Burning it emits more C02, SO2, and NOx and the mercury content of lignite is greater. This doesn't include the energy or environmental costs of mining and transporting lignite.

 

[venator260]

My understanding is that lignite is the dirtiest of the three. Burning it emits more C02, SO2, and NOx and the mercury content of lignite is greater. This doesn't include the energy or environmental costs of mining and transporting lignite.

It's the least energy dense form of coal. I'm not sure about CO2 though. Anthracite has the highest carbon content of any coal. And the more carbon available, the more CO2 produced, I would think. The high carbon content is what give anthracite all of the advantage for home heating: no visible emissions, long and clean burn (no chimney deposits) less need to poke at it (I've read bituminous has a tendency to fuse together, necessitating poking the coal load). It burns up through the load, new fuel on top, ash out the bottom.

If I wasn't convinced about the truth of the problems with CO2 and didnt live on 85 wooded acres, I probably would have purchased a coal stove instead of a wood stove. Burning anthracite had several perks.

 

[Dobish]

Just got this months bill. I saved $10 in gas over last year, and our electric usage went down by 60 kWh over last year. December and January are the biggest usage months by far, so I feel like i'm making progress!

 

[DeniseLyons]

Great advice!

 

[begreen]

It's the least energy dense form of coal. I'm not sure about CO2 though. Anthracite has the highest carbon content of any coal. And the more carbon available, the more CO2 produced, I would think. The high carbon content is what give anthracite all of the advantage for home heating: no visible emissions, long and clean burn (no chimney deposits) less need to poke at it (I've read bituminous has a tendency to fuse together, necessitating poking the coal load). It burns up through the load, new fuel on top, ash out the bottom.

If I wasn't convinced about the truth of the problems with CO2 and didnt live on 85 wooded acres, I probably would have purchased a coal stove instead of a wood stove. Burning anthracite had several perks.

Lignite's lower heating value means more fuel must be handled to produce a given amount of power
CO2 output seems to be a bit higher than hard coal.

 

[venator260]

Lignite's lower heating value means more fuel must be handled to produce a given amount of power
CO2 output seems to be a bit higher than hard coal.
View attachment 193863

Makes sense. I was thinking in about per pound of fuel burned. It makes more sense though to think about per unit of energy produced, which is what you were referencing.

 

[georgepds]

.....

I think that anyone who thinks that they are saving money doing this woodburning thing, if they account for the value of their time in the free market, is kidding themselves. I honestly couldn't be doing it any other way, and the work that I do feeding the stove is actually running the odometer backwards.

Not so sure about that. I heat with wood (have been since 1984). Up till a few years ago it was wood, with propane for backup when I'm not there. Now it's wood with heat pump backup ( powered by solar PV).Since I installed a Progress Hybrid my wood use dropped from 4 chords/year down to 2. Those 2 chords cost me ~$600.

On my island (New England) the primary source of heat is propane. It is not unusual for someone to pay $2k to $4k over the winter. If you use a lot the price drops, but if you sip it like I do it's $4/gallon. I can work out the $/therm, but I doubt that would convince anyone.. let's just say I'm in for $600/winter and not $3k

If you buy the wood, like I do, you still need to stack it in the spring, bring it in once a week, and of course, feed the stove 2 or 3 times a day. I really don't regard feeding the stove as a chore. I'm used to the rhythms of wood heating. My reality test is this: what if I was spending $3k a year for wood, and $600 for propane.. would I switch to propane... YES.

Could be kidding myself, but I'm nice and toasty while my neighbors are fretting over the propane bill

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

Not so sure about that. I heat with wood (have been since 1984). Up till a few years ago it was wood, with propane for backup when I'm not there. Now it's wood with heat pump backup ( powered by solar PV).Since I installed a Progress Hybrid my wood use dropped from 4 chords/year down to 2. Those 2 chords cost me ~$600.

On my island (New England) the primary source of heat is propane. It is not unusual for someone to pay $2k to $4k over the winter. If you use a lot the price drops, but if you sip it like I do it's $4/gallon. I can work out the $/therm, but I doubt that would convince anyone.. let's just say I'm in for $600/winter and not $3k

If you buy the wood, like I do, you still need to stack it in the spring, bring it in once a week, and of course, feed the stove 2 or 3 times a day. I really don't regard feeding the stove as a chore. I'm used to the rhythms of wood heating. My reality test is this: what if I was spending $3k a year for wood, and $600 for propane.. would I switch to propane... YES.

Could be kidding myself, but I'm nice and toasty while my neighbors are fretting over the propane bill

Yes, you are right, blanket statements like I made are rarely accurate in all instances. I scrounge almost every part of my system, including my chainsaws (thank you Marriott points and friend who ended up afraid of the little 14" Echo), trailer, wood, even my stove and liner were on closeout. But, other stuff adds up, like chains, fuel, oil, etc., and I spend enormous amounts of time handling the wood, from log to ash. And you are on island rates, which may make things like propane more expensive. But to your point, I was wrong to make a blanket statement that I should have known would not be correct for everyone.