I interpreted the question as the amount if every bit of lumber residue was used for pellets. I found a site with the amount of board feet of lumber available each year and split that in half since the site said only half of each tree can be used for lumber. I then took the average density of lumber wood and multiplied it by the total possible amount of lumber residue. I saw a site that said the average home would need six tons of pellets to heat it for a year and divided the total possible amount of wood pellets by six.
The actual amount that would be economical would be much less since much of the lumber residue is used for other uses and since the price of oil is so low these days it is probably hard for wood pellets to be cost competitive. My reading seems to indicate much of the wood pellet production is going to europe to comply with renewable fuel standards which seems odd.
This is a weird thread.
Pellets are cheap when the source material is close by. Transportation costs are the bulk of the costs. If you are on the west coast you make your pellets out of doug fir. If you are inland you make them out of pine/fir/larch. If you are on the east coast you make them out of hard woods. If you start shipping them across the country because you can’t burn pine? or hardwoods are better or worse, you might as well be burning the fuel and money it takes to ship them.
Propane used to be inexpensive. It was a byproduct of making gasoline, and at one time was burned off. The price went up with gasoline, and never came back down, at least here.
I wonder if the pellets will go up in price when they are used more.
Ha, you have a younger back than I. Yes, did do that, but back in the day when I was young, dumb and full of ***. I have not chopped my own wood in decades. However I did burn for years and years. Stacked the oak that was cut, split and delivered by others.
Always liked a fireplace burning. During the summer I do an outside pit fire every weekend i am home.