Firewood loads (again)

Hi,
just reviewed the last thread and closes to a price per volume was (IIRC) 30 for 0.7 cubic m. This is roughly 43 per cubic metre delivered locally. Is this the going price this year?
Just visited a local firewood place and they (probably - the main guy wasn't there) wanted 20 for a small trailer, load yourself.
The trailer is about 0.42 cu m - possibly get it up to 0.5 cu m if I stacked it - so I was trying to work out if this was a fair price. One issue here is how much you pay for delivery.
10 miles each way is about 0.5 gal diesel, I guess - about 2? Then there is the time for loading, unloading and driving (an hour for the round trip?) plus provision and maintenance of the vehicle. Presumably this puts the total cost of delivery to about 10 - 15? Unless they load it by hand, in which case it may take longer.
Deduct this from the 65 for a 4' * 8' trailer load (estimated at 1.5 cu m assuming stacked at least 0.5m high) gives about (50 *2/3) 35 cu m collected.
Hmm...half of that is about 17.50 and if you stack the trailer you get to pick your own wood and pack it tight. So this could be a reasonable deal if my starting price and approximations are valid.
What does the team think?
Dave R
P.S. they had a load of silver birch there - ISTR that this is very light in weight and therefore not good in 'bangs per buck' for firewood, where denser wood such as oak should burn longer.
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wasn't
stacked
in
denser
I pay 36 per load, delivered and stacked in the shed. I estimate thats about 1 cubic metre but I might be getting a discount as I always have a double load and have about 3 or 4 deliveries a month so I'm spending about 250-300 per month on logs through the winter. Damn I need central heating!
Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suspect it's well under the going price in this area :-(. You don't say where you are from. Round here (south of Oxford) for decent seasoned hardwood I was quoted 52, 55 and 57 for a half load delivered. I went for the 52 and got half a flat bed truck of well seasoned beech. Looks about 0.7cu m, though I haven't measured it, I'll try and do so tonight.
Bob Mannix
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(IIRC)
for
Suffolk-by-the-Sea
I sort of expected a rural county to have cheap firewood, but unfortunately all the bl**ding yuppies have log fires and stoves.
Guess it gets cheaper away from the towns :-)
Strangely, the cheapest load last year was from over the border in Colchester.
Makes 85 for a truck load seem cheaper than I thought at first.
Cheers
Dave R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

say
about
unfortunately
I measured the stack last night. Mentally replacing the logs I already have used it's a bit less than 1000x2000x400 (8" lsplit logs stacked two deep 400) ie about 0.7cu m. That's in a stack so I guess it was a bit more jumbled in the truck. This is more than I thought so not such bad value. The problem is that there is no such thing as a standard "load" (AFAICT).
I guess I'm a bl**ding yuppie (except I'm considerably too old and ceased being upwardly mobile some time ago - a sort of oippie, old immobile...), as the log fire is in addition to the normal heating and purely for pleasure. We removed a "coal effect" gas fire and put a "proper" fire back in. I think we derived more pleasure from the proper fire in 1 week than we had from the gas fire in ten years, so that was a result.
Cheers,
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:46 -0000, "David W.E. Roberts"

If that was the bulk bag then reckon on 50% of the contents being air. I did weigh some and 300kg of relatively unseasoned wood was about average. It was an ex yard price and contained about GBP8 worth of cordwood.

I've not tried this but I would expect to improve the wood to airspace ration from the "jumbled" 50% to better than 70%, maybe as much as 80% if you have a bent for dry stone walls.

From FC mensuration handbook
Basic density birch = 0.53 Green moisture content birch = 76% dwb Basic density oak = 0.56 Green moisture content oak = 89% dwb
So if both are green the birch is the better bet, all other things being equal (and they're not coz the birch will burn faster on an open fire).
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:04 +0000, Andrew Heggie < snipped-for-privacy@dtn.invalid wrote:

The above only applies is buying by weight, on a volume basis it's the oak that is better, *sadly* I decided to do a rough check and was surprised to find the greater moisture content of the oak did not offset it's higher basic density.
A quick calc suggests 1m3 (solid) of oak unseasoned will have a net calorific value of 9070MJ, birch 8770MJ.
By weight, 1 tonne of the same wood, oak 8569MJ, birch 9402MJ
In practice who knows which would be better, as they season oak is better, especially as birch tends to perish unless cut, split and dried quickly.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.