I’m sure it’s been done, but has anyone done a recent cost comparison of pellets and charcoal? Inquiring mind and all...
-
-
I assume you are referring to the relative cost of using pellets versus using charcoal as a cooking medium. That involves a matrix of information. One would have to do a side by side comparison using the same piece of meat cooked at the same temperature and measure the amount of time. That then would determine the amount of fuel consumed. It would then be a simple math problem to determine relative costs.
In my case, I buy pellets in bulk for $0.37/lb and KBB charcoal on sale for around $0.47/lb. If I'm doing a 4 hour cook at say 225* I will burn about 4 lbs. of pellets over the duration so 4x$0.37 = $1.48 worth of fuel expended. If I burn say 3 lbs of charcoal over that same cook on a Weber kettle, then the math says 3x$0.47 = $1.41 worth of fuel expended. I'm just using this as an example, the cost of the fuel is going to vary and thus the result as well as the type and temperature of the cook.
Hope that answers your question. -
From Troutman 's numbers, cost of charcoal and pellets could end up close to the same. I've heard 1 pound per hour at 225F for many pellet cookers, and my experience with my kettle and SNS has been about 1 pound of charcoal per hour. Charcoal costs for me range from 26 cents per pound (Royal Oak or KBB 2 pack summer sales) to 60 cents per pound (Weber 20# sack for $12).
My offset on the other hand, if burning just charcoal, consumes several times what my kettle + SNS does, to maintain the same smoking temperatures, so its all cooker dependent.Comment
-
I just did a cost comp between Candy's Competition Mix and the cheapest LP I get, in terms of expected hours of cooking versus cost, as Meathead did in his Pellet grill article. I think the pellets are a wee bit cheaper, but then add in the electricity cost (minimal but non-zero), and it's about the same.
-
-
Thank you! This is great information poured into my vague guesswork.
I had assumed that pellets would be significantly more expensive in operation. Apparently not, depending on the use. I’m going to be jumping into the pellet cooker world in the near future.
TX LComment
-
Depends on your cooker. In my ceramic I think that what I spend in lump is less than what I would have spent in pellets. Last cook I did was 13 or 14 hours, so it would have been up to 14 pounds of pellets. I don’t know how much lump I used, I filled the box and after the grill cooled down I still had some left.
So how much less? I don’t know. If I use that expensive artisanal charcoal imported from Cuba I’m going to spend $40 for a 20 pound bag. Even more of I import white charcoal from Japan. But if I use the cheap stuff on sale at a big box store, I spend less (and get less quality). I imagine the same holds true for pellets. You have "the good stuff" and "the meh it works" stuff.
Your question has no definitive answer. There are way too many variables. But at the end of the day, I think it is a wash. I could have spent $1000 on a Rec-Tec instead of my Primo XL and everything else (cyberq, various accessories like the heat plates, plus the lumber for the sweet table I built). So even if charcoal is "cheaper" I spent about $900 more than a Rec-Tec would have cost, and $900 buys A LOT of pellets.
By the same logic, a $1000 Rec-Tec is a lot more expensive than a Weber kettle plus SNS, so even if pellets are cheaper the money not spent on the grill buys a lot of charcoal.
So get what you want, and don’t worry about the minor details
Comment
-
So true SmokeyGator! In the end, even a WSM is cheaper by far and not nearly as picky on charcoal as a ceramic. And the cost leaves you with a pile of money to buy meat, charcoal, thermometers, etc. to learn how to Q!
-
Comment