df33702021

df33702021 t1_isxfn95 wrote

It was just a fluke. You need to include your equipment repairs into your cost regardless of how they happened. Otherwise you are not being honest with what wood is costing you. If you were selling firewood, you most certainly would include it as a means to lower your tax burden. It's not dumb at all. In fact, it would be dumb not to.

Also, you can value your time as you see fit. You can measure that however you wish: money, time away from kids, time not fishing, etc. It's your time spent. Wood is time intensive. That's the tradeoff. If you don't value your time dealing with wood, it will always be cheaper in your own mind. Put a value on it plus include costs like equipment repair and maintenance to obtain the wood and you're into the more expensive or break even area compared to using other energy sources. In my case as propane prices keep rising, that becomes less true. But it's not there yet.

1

df33702021 t1_isuvs53 wrote

Fair enough. I value my time.

I would fill it 4 times/day. I also have two wood stoves, one of which I only use if it's real cold. 15m/day works out to be ~3.5m per fill. Even if you spend 10m/day it adds up to 5hrs/mo. Most people wouldn't even include this time, but they should if they are comparing wood to propane, oil, etc.

3

df33702021 t1_isus261 wrote

Oh that's laughable. Why don't you pick a number? I actually value my time higher as does my employer, but go ahead use $20/hr. So 10 days* 8hrs/day*$20/hr=$1600. Still cheaper with propane. Why would collecting and cutting be cost free but for my time? Is the tractor, winch, splitter, chainsaws, chainsaw chains, gas, oil, bar and chain oil, pulp hooks, the land, etc cost free? That's more expense than my time would be even if I amortize it out. If I include all that then obviously propane is cheaper than wood by an order of magnitude. Yet you want to hand wave that away.

I gave you an example of how cutting wood resulted in breaking the tractor and causing a $3000 repair. You ignore it. That adds to the expense.

Let me guess, you've never cut wood.

Additionally putting wood in the stove is an activity specific to wood. You don't do anything of the sort with propane. Why would you not include it when comparing the two.

6

df33702021 t1_isuoba9 wrote

I cut, block, split, and stack my own wood. It takes me upwards of 4 days to do this part. Then it takes those 5.6 days to fill the wood stove. I never really assigned a dollar value to my time, but you're talking upwards of 10 days/yr dealing with wood. If I used what I get for pay for my job, that would be the priciest wood ever. If you want to use $20/hr then 10 days*8 hr days*$20/hr= $1600. At some point, you have to ask yourself is it worth it. Of course, that doesn't include fuel, equipment, etc. Or any injuries you sustain. That's a whole different angle.

I put in a gas-condensing 95% AFUE boiler with low mass radiant and it's just so efficient that it turned the whole wood scenario on it's head. The pivot point is when propane gets over $4/g, but I probably would still use it up to $5/g.

3

df33702021 t1_isugww8 wrote

As I said wood is not cheaper for me at this time. I gave you the math. Sorry if that blows your mind, but the math doesn't lie. I cut my wood in at the most 4 days time. I thought 15min/day was probably accurate. When burning, I fill my primary stove (sometimes both) maybe 4-5 times/day so ~3.5 minutes per load. We keep a stack of wood right outside the door, but that needs to be replenished every couple days. 15 min/day is probably right in terms of wood handling. At 15 min/day it takes upwards of 6 eight hour days/yr to fill the stove. That's a total of 10 days/yr screwing with wood. It's a super time intensive task. Last I looked, propane was $3.51. However, it's likely that I can get a better price than that since I own my tank and can shop around. As I said, propane has got to be in the $4 area to even begin to start thinking about wood, even buying it split and delivered. Even at $4. it's iffy.

5

df33702021 t1_isu2d91 wrote

I don't buy wood. I cut my own. I can cut, block, split, and stack a years worth of wood in 3-4 days. Loading the wood stove means getting wood from the wood pile and putting the wood in the stove multiple times a day for months. Even if you only spend 15 minutes/day doing this, that's 7.5 hrs/month just loading the wood stove. If you run your wood stove 6 months/yr, that's 5.6 eight hour days spent just to load the stove. But as said, I can cut a years worth of wood in 3-4 days. Loading the stove is more time spent than the entire process of obtaining the wood.

Last year i paid $1849 for propane with the most recent price of $2.45/g for propane. I use propane for grill, stove, clothes dryer, radiant heat, and domestic hot water. If I were to burn wood exclusively and buy it, it would be 5-6 cords/yr which would be $1400-1800 or more depending on price/cord just for heat. For me, propane currently is cheaper than buying firewood. When propane gets in the $4/g area, the tables start to turn. But even then it's iffy since firewood sellers know when the price of propane, oil, or whatever alternative goes up.

As I said, I cut my own firewood. Any type of equipment breakage will destroy any savings you think you're getting by cutting your own wood. One year I was skidding out a beech and I broke one of the 3 point hitch casing mounts off the tractor. That was a $3000 fix. So much for cheap firewood.

1

df33702021 t1_istke0u wrote

For years, I used two wood stoves to heat my house exclusively because I had nothing else. Now I have super efficient propane driven radiant. Since then there are some years that I don't burn any wood. It's cheaper to use propane than it is to buy firewood. I cut my own wood from my own property and even then it's borderline not worth it. Propane has to be pushing $4/g for me to think wood. Otherwise, it's thermostat controlled propane radiant and a warm floor. Wood is labor intensive. Especially the "load the stove" part. Most people don't factor their time in.

3

df33702021 t1_isq07c2 wrote

A lot of Mexican food is the same. One big melting pot.

As I have read: "Take your typical street taco, for instance. You've got beef or pork with cilantro, onion, and lime juice seasoned with hot sauce, garlic,
and cumin on a tortilla. Out of all the ingredients, only the chili peppers in the hot sauce and tortilla are native Mexican products, and the tortilla doesn't even count if it's made with wheat flour"

1

df33702021 t1_isp64zd wrote

Everyone standardizes on the socal version of a taco which is disappointing.

I went to the one in Essex once. Never again. It was awful. The fillings were like as if they were sitting on a cafeteria style hot table uncovered for a couple days. Dry and cooked to death with blah flavor. It was like the food was 10 days old and everyday sitting in that hot table. It was also super super salty. I tried it, but couldn't eat it. Even with only a couple bites that I tried, I had to suck down a couple glasses of water. I will never go to a Mad Taco again.

1