Burning wood for heat has more than dollars and cents value in Maine

Firewood still lights my fire, but then again it always did.

But should it? Is it cheaper today to heat with oil or wood? How does wood stack up against oil in a post-Iraqi invasion world?

First I’ll let you in on a secret. Here’s really why I burn wood as much as possible.

Number one, the exercise is good for my ticker. I grew up on a farm punching cattle, but these days exercise for most of us is limited to a race for the last doughnut. That’s not what our doctors have in mind. My favorite nurse tells me to get 30 minutes of heart pumping exercise at least five times a week. If you have cut or split wood, you know it qualifies.

I suppose I could try aerobics, jog or jump off a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around my ankle, but none of that thrills me. When those activities end, there is little to show for the energy exerted except lost time. My woodpile I can take to the bank.

Reason two is wood heat itself. It feels different. Oil heat is warm but it’s not the same. Wood heat warms to the bone. Variations in mood or body temperature can be enhanced or compensated by proximity to the source. For instance, if you’re cold — or feeling left out in the cold — get closer to the heat source.

Heating with wood heat also teaches us and our children responsibilty, thrift and the rewards of plain hard work.

There you have it. Those are the real reasons I burn wood.

On the other hand, there is the economic consideration. It is a good one.

I happen to cut my own trees. My only cost is the gas and oil for my chainsaw plus $20 per year for the saw amortized over 15 years. The stove is paid for. And I’m careful and don’t have accidents.

I also assume the risks associated with the dangerous act of cutting wood. You should consider if you are psychologically and physically suited to this labor. I am. It takes 10 hours to take care of five cords of good wood. I estimate my cost at $30 and a brief spat with my spouse.

Assuming 55 percent stove efficiency, value the five cords of ash and oak at 75 million BTUs. That’s how heat is measured. Five cords take care of my winter.

That amount of wood would equal roughly 850 gallons of oil, assuming the furnace runs at 70 percent efficiency. The cost of oil at $1 a gallon is $850 while my cost for wood is $30. That’s an $820 savings. I spent 10 hours of labor so I earned $82 per hour to cut wood.

Of course this is after-tax income so pre-tax would be more like $125 per hour ($1,250 total) for someone in the 36 percent combined tax bracket, which is most of us.

What if you have to buy wood? At a cost of $60 per cord for four-foot wood, five cords would cost $300, but would take less time to cut. If it took you five hours to cut the wood and cost you $25 for the saw and fuel and you already own the stove, then you would still be saving $525 over the cost of oil.

The reason is simple. Oil is cheaper in the Middle East because that’s where the oil is. Wood is cheaper here because we have the wood. If you count transportation for wood there or oil here, I’m sure dollar per BTU would net-net equal. But not quite. Remember, the real reason I prefer wood is exercise and controlled warmth. It’s also economically sound if you know what you’re doing. Paul Jarvis is a stockbroker in Bangor with A.G. Edwards