Least Efficient -- Not Worst

A fireplace isn�t the worst way to heat a house � it is just the least efficient of common wood burning methods. Efficiency may not be the highest priority.

In fact, the fireplace might be considered the best � if one�s highest priority is enjoyment (with a secondary objective of providing heat).

My wife and I love our fireplace and we both enjoy cutting and splitting firewood (even after many year�s experience).

We�re not complaining at all about the effort required to heat with the fireplace. We�re just saying that thinking that any wood heat is �free� ignores the fact that firewood has value (and could be sold instead of burned) � and that calculation of cost should include that lost income.

LeMaverick

This line totally invalidates your question, tho. I understand what you are saying, that's cool. But, first you ask if the wood heat is free or costing; and now you say the cost does not matter, it's only that you enjoy it.

Which is it? you can't have a discussion & be on both sides? You have totally contradicted yourself.

:) :) :) I know this is all in fun, no problem. :) Just my thoughts on your 'discussion'. You now have no point at all. And, your point was all wrong to start with, for those of us who actually need to heat a building....

I live in Minnesota, last winter we had several nights down to minus 28 degrees, the day did not get up to minus 5 degrees. A fireplace that puts 75% of the heat produced up the chimney, and when not in use siphons other heat out of the house through the chimney, is _NOT EVER_ considered a best heating device here. You would never be able to enjoy the flames, you would be too busy trying to make firewood to feed the dern thing. :)

(Sometimes typed words look real stern - I'm just having fun & enjoying the discussion here with a big grin on my face, hope that comes through. :) :) :)

--->Paul

Boy are we on the opposite ends of the heating continuum. You have minus 28 and we seldom get lower than positive 28 (and then only a few times per year -- but we still feel it necessary to heat the house).

When I lived in harsh winter climate (rural northwestern Pennsylvania) I built a wood-burning furnace and heated with wood exclusively -- but still used a fireplace frequently because I LIKE a fireplace.

My original point is valid in that if we make firewood (no matter what we burn it in) we have a choice to either use that wood or sell it. If we use it (no matter how much), we walk away from the money we could have made by selling -- and THAT is our cost.

I'm not looking for cheap or easy -- that isn't the point.

All said with a smile -- and with great enjoyment of the exchange of information.

I grow corn. Lets pretend it costs me $1.90 to raise it per bu.

Lets pretend the elevator is offering $2.03 per bu.

Lets pretend a neighbor wants a few bu for $2.25 from me - but not all of what I have, just small portion.

Let"s pretend I can feed the corn to cattle, and right now doing that & selling the cattle would get me $2.25 a bu.

What would you consider the true cost of my corn?

It is always $1.90 to me. I need to explore the different oppertunities to change that into something better for me - no work but low rate of return; or a high risk, but higher rate of return.

Your true cost of the wood is what it costs you to make it. After that, the profit is in what you decide to do with it. Some would sell it for $450 and figure they had a good rate of return. You choose to burn it in an open fire and feel you get a very good rate of return.

I believe this example truely measures the cost & benifit, and accounts for things properly.

Again, if you play the stock market, you _could_ have been a millionare if you bought the right stocks at the right time & sold at the right time. But you & I didn"t, so here we are in reality, not dream world. :)

To get a proper handle on what you have & where you are, you need to figure the cost of something as the true, actual, current cost. Your wood has low $$$ cost, large labor & time cost.

What you wish to turn that into, small pile of money or small pile of ashes, is for the future to decide, and how big those piles are and what value they will have to you is actually unknown. Right now, the cost of your pile of wood is what it cost you.

That is how I would look at it.

--->Paul

You have interesting and informative things to say and you make several good points that cause me to reconsider costs and the meaning of various terms.

Can we say?

Cost of firewood = fuel + maintenance on equipment + personal time + cost of logs. Log cost is zero in our case when cutting dead, down or hazard trees on our property. Fuel and maintenance are negligible (guesstimate $15 per cord?). The time we spend cutting and splitting our personal firewood we don�t put a price on � any more than a dedicated rose or vegetable gardener would �price� her time in growing her roses or vegetables). Thus, we have very little invested in the firewood, other than personal effort.

Value of firewood = what it would bring on the local market, or what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the wood �where is, as is�. We�d probably take $150 a cord if someone offered that � and go out and cut some more before cold weather. A buyer might offer $125 or so and we might negotiate, but a cord is worth somewhere in that range around here.

Profit (if sold at $150) = value minus cost = $150 � 15 = $135 per cord (which in this case would include �compensation� for our time invested). If we were making firewood commercially, we would place a value on our time and keep track of the number of hours that are required to cut and split a cord (to determine if it was worth our while to market firewood).

If we intend to burn the firewood, COST and VALUE of the original firewood stack are not changed. Right? All that varies is profit � and it becomes zero if we decline to sell. Thus, we forgo PROFIT (or potential profit to be more correct) if we burn the wood.

To think about things in a slightly different way, if the corn that costs you $1.90 / bu to produce were destroyed in a fire, what would you tell your insurance company it was worth?

If someone stole my firewood I would tell my insurance company that firewood is worth $150 a cord and that is what it would cost me to buy firewood to replace it.

I don�t know that either of us would be fairly compensated by our respective insurance companies, but it seems like we could make a strong case for a reasonable replacement value.

It is enjoyable and educational to exchange ideas � but sooner or later we�re going to have to get back to work. Hehehehe

I�ve posted separately in this thread �How All This Got Started�. Your comments will be appreciated.

Dave