Trego's Mountain Ear

"Serving North Lincoln County"

Tag: Firewood

  • Wet Firewood

    Wet Firewood

    I have accidentally entered the energy business.  About a third of the logs left after Lincoln Electric maintained the power lines were cut to non-marketable lengths, so the alternative was turning them into firewood.  Earlier, I wrote of the differences between species as firewood – this time I’m looking at the cost of water in firewood.

    In general, a cord of green wood contains about a ton of water.  The problem isn’t the action of heating the water – raising the temperature of water is an easy calculation.  A British Thermal Unit (BTU) is the amount of heat required to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.    The problem is converting ice to water, and water to steam.  It takes twice as much heat to raise a pound of ice one degree as it does a pound of water.  There’s 144 BTU difference changing from ice to water.  Then, once the water is heated to boiling, we need another 970 BTU to change a pound of water into steam.

    15% moisture, in Douglas Fir that’s been drying a year. It would be about 30% moisture freshly cut.

    The references tell me that firewood is “dry” when it is still holding 20% moisture.  The dry larch on my porch tests from 11% to 15%, so I’m feeling good.  Let’s guess that there’s a pound of water in an 8 pound chunk of stovewood, and I’m bringing it in at zero degrees – no temperature at all.  Makes the calculations easier.  This calculation is for 12.5% water – fairly dry wood.  Double the numbers for 25%, and remember 20% moisture is considered dry. 

    Changing one pound of ice at zero degrees to steam that can go up the chimney takes:
     64 BTU to bring the ice from 0 degrees to 32 degrees
    144 BTU to change ice to water
    180 BTU to bring the water from 32 degrees to 212 degrees
    970 BTU to change water to steam and send it out the stack

    1358 BTU total, just to get rid of one pound of water, from about 69,000 BTU in my 8 pound piece of dry stovewood – a loss of roughly 2 percent.  You won’t notice it on my 15% larch.  On the other hand, a cord of lodgepole has 23% less BTU than larch, but the calculations for water stay the same.

    And that assumes 100 percent efficiency – which I don’t have.  The moisture meter cost less than $20 – and I think it’s worth having on hand. 

  • Firewood Rankings by Species

    The change from burning forests to burning wood is coming fast – and while we use a lot of firewood, we rarely look at just how much heat each species produces, or at how much a cord weighs.  This chart, from the California Energy Commission, ranks production by species, and shows the weight of a cord.  At 3,321 pounds for a cord of dry Western Larch, it takes a pretty good pickup to carry a cord. 

    Western Softwoods Figures from California Energy Commission BTU Rating Based on 90 cubic feet of solid wood per 128 cubic foot cord

    SpeciesHeat Content (BTU’s per Cord)Weight Green (lbs per Cord)Weight Dry (lbs per Cord)
    Western Larch (Tamarack)28.754543321
    Douglas Fir26.550503075
    Western Juniper26.454103050
    Western Hemlock24.457302830
    Lodgepole Pine22.342702580
    Ponderosa Pine21.742702520
    Sitka Spruce21.741002520
    Red Fir20.640402400
    White Fir21.131902400
    Grand Fir20.138802330
    Table from firewoodresource.com