4 ms·

> No AC and wood heating are going to be a hard sell. For some buyers, yeah, No Ac and wood heat are going to be a "Nope!". But I disagree that such is going t

> No AC and wood heating are going to be a hard sell. For some buyers, yeah, No Ac and wood heat are going to be a "Nope!". But I disagree that such is going to be the case for all buyers. There are going to be some people who actually want a house with no AC and wood heat.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The hard part of wood heat is that in a climate like NH, it means you cannot effectively leave the house for any prolonged period in the winter without making sure that any liquids in the house (e.g. paint) have been moved elsewhere. Ditto for houseplants and pets. Those wood fires won't light themselves. My wife and I moved into an adobe home in rural NM last year, and we had to wait until our new air-source heat pumps were running in February before we could leave. Working with wood heat only for most of the winter was (1) a lot of work (2) very nice heat (3) a lot of work. Yes, you could maybe get a housesitter but then we're into a whole new game.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  The house in the article has a propane boiler also. They can leave whenever they want.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I thought it said "propane for hot water, wood for heat". But re-reading part II, they clearly have a propane heat backup, but merely "plan to rely on wood".
claydavisss 6y ago
I can't imagine anyone being okay with wood heat, and any decent realtor would likely either warn a buyer off of it or demand a discount sufficient to install an efficient alternative. Its interesting to see an ostensibly progressive couple select what is probably the most regressive means available to heat their home - even heating oil would be less polluting over the course of a winter. It is inevitable that their county will join many others in banning wood burning, and it is likely the EPA will just ban it nationwide at some point. I would think someone wanting to distinguish their home in 2020 would seek to make it noteworthy for low pollution, not for excessive pollution.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

The hard part of wood heat is that in a climate like NH, it means you cannot effectively leave the house for any prolonged period in the winter without making sure that any liquids in the house (e.g. paint) have been moved elsewhere. Ditto for houseplants and pets. Those wood fires won't light themselves. My wife and I moved into an adobe home in rural NM last year, and we had to wait until our new air-source heat pumps were running in February before we could leave. Working with wood heat only for most of the winter was (1) a lot of work (2) very nice heat (3) a lot of work. Yes, you could maybe get a housesitter but then we're into a whole new game.

maxerickson 6y ago
The house in the article has a propane boiler also. They can leave whenever they want.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I thought it said "propane for hot water, wood for heat". But re-reading part II, they clearly have a propane heat backup, but merely "plan to rely on wood".

claydavisss 6y ago

I can't imagine anyone being okay with wood heat, and any decent realtor would likely either warn a buyer off of it or demand a discount sufficient to install an efficient alternative. Its interesting to see an ostensibly progressive couple select what is probably the most regressive means available to heat their home - even heating oil would be less polluting over the course of a winter. It is inevitable that their county will join many others in banning wood burning, and it is likely the EPA will just ban it nationwide at some point. I would think someone wanting to distinguish their home in 2020 would seek to make it noteworthy for low pollution, not for excessive pollution.