Hating using fossil fuels for my old Victorian!

[Coldjensens]

The old fireplaces actually heat much much better than new ones. The new ones are designed for safety, they a small, high off the floor and very deep, and do not heat much at all. They are designed to send the heat up the chimney to protect the house. They are just decorations. Older fireplaces - the fire is at floor level, the firebox is shallow and the opening usually quite large and many have a smoke shelf built in that holds heat. The chimney is also built up through the middle of the house, so the heat going out the chimney is not wasted.

We sometimes keep fires burning in our two fireplaces for weeks at a time and it heats 70% of the downstairs ranging form 80 degrees into the low 70s or high 60s. The second floor is heated to about high 50s/low 60s from the chimney passing through. There is some danger of course, but the house has not burned down in the past 180 years, not likely to change that today.

It was funny to see the little pile of sticks after reading the other post. Not making fun of you, just at perceptions of people who have never burned wood for heat. We do not heat with the fireplaces all winter, just on and off as we feel like it. Still, we got through 1-3 cords of firewood each year. If you cut up those sticks, you might have 1/10 of a cord. However those limbs are too small to be of much use in a fireplace. They are too small and will burn very fast (generating lots of heat, but you will be constantly feeding more in. You are not gong to throw four of those into a fire and get 3/4 of the way through a night before someone has to add more. You would be lucky to get 15 -20 minutes. Hardwoods like oak, ash and maple burn more slowly, but if they were that small, they would not be dense enough to slow the burn time much.

I will attach a picture of a cord of wood for reference. People I know who heat with wood entirely put away 7-8 cords for the winter.

[marino760]

I haven't bought a cord of wood in several years since I no longer have a wood burning stove. Do you mind telling me what a cord of lets say mixed wood would cost these days?

[David A Stone]

In my area, lots of oak woods, a full cord of oak firewood would be $135 delivered.

[isamom]

Victorian fireplaces were for coal burning. Many times, they are too shallow to accommodate energy efficient inserts. yes I guess the flue could be used with an energy efficient pellet stove, I could agree to that. Conventional wood burning fireplace are 30% efficient at best.... IMO sealing the opening, keeping the mantel as a focal point , putting candles is a low cost option..

[marino760]

Originally Posted by isamom

Victorian fireplaces were for coal burning. Many times, they are too shallow to accommodate energy efficient inserts. yes I guess the flue could be used with an energy efficient pellet stove, I could agree to that. Conventional wood burning fireplace are 30% efficient at best.... IMO sealing the opening, keeping the mantel as a focal point , putting candles is a low cost option..

Of course that's an option but many are wood burning as well as coal, at least the ones I've seen. Perhaps it depends on what part of the country they are located.
Regardless IMO, if you feel the need to brick off the fireplaces in a Victorian or craftsman home, there are other options for sealing the fireplaces off without turning them into something horrible to look at. Also, there are inserts specifically made for Victorians. Of course, everyone is entitled to do what they want with their homes, but that's just my opinion. This one pictured is sealed off but I think done so rather tastefully.