4 ms·
> It’s a lot cheaper than the alternatives. Really? The efficiency is very low heating a house with wood unless you use it to warm water which is distributing
by flakeoil 4y ago
> It’s a lot cheaper than the alternatives.
Really? The efficiency is very low heating a house with wood unless you use it to warm water which is distributing the heat to radiators (and for heating warm water to the showers). Almost no-one who burns wood has this, people just have a chimney in the living room.
And how do you feed the wood into the burner? Waste 10 minutes every hour, 24/7?
- grecy 4y agoI live in the North where -40 is common. I would say the vast majority of people have a wood stove, and they work exceedingly well. You might not be aware but ones that burn the wood twice (even three times) are now common and in fact are law in many places. So they're MUCH more efficient, and drastically reduce the particulates coming out the stove pipe. Another benefit is they only need to be fed once every 24-48 hours (depending on what heat you set the thermostat, what size stove you have, how well insulated your house is and what temperature it is outside.) Wood stoves are a necessity.
- hansvm 4y agoAll it costs is your time, and not much of that since it replaces some of the time you'd otherwise spend exercising. 30hr/yr to break down a recently downed tree into firewood, 5min/day to clear out ashes and bring in new wood for the stove, and 1 min every 6hr to shove some new wood in the stove. You have gas as a more expensive fallback to keep things from freezing if you get lazy or are gone for awhile, and especially if a good job in the area pays $10/hr it's a no-brainer for most of the population to use wood heat. The stove pays for itself in less than a winter in gas savings.