I want to build a new home next year. It will be a one story with a loft. I am contemplating a hydronic heating system, on the main floor only, with an electric boiler. I am also going to have a wood stove on the main floor, which will be the primary source of heat. I am thinking electric boiler because the cost of it would be cheaper than an oil fired or propane boiler, which are the only other possible heat sources I have, natural gas is not available where I am going to be building. I am figuring I will never get the cost savings back from going with an oil or propane fired boiler because of the wood I will be burning in the wood stove? Is this a correct assumption? Is this overkill? Very inefficient? Or just plain assinine?

Electric boilers are a good choice, depending on your location will in the country naturally affect the net savings or cost of fuel but electric boilers are easy to use. They rarely fail, are 100% fuel effective, no stack loss and can be placed in almost any location as there is no vent requirement. You will have a PRV drain line to consider. Coupled with a wood primary this is a good choice.
Dan

If payback is a concern, you should explore forced air as well as radiant. Radiant is more efficient, but you can come close with forced air if you carefully seal and and insulate ductwork. You'd have two advantages:

1. Ductwork greatly simplifies the challenge of moving radiant heat from the wood stove to distant parts of the house. In fact, there are fireplace inserts that can connected directly to central heating systems.

2. Depending on where you live, an air source heat pump would give you inexpensive backup heat when you need it most, in the shoulder seasons when it is too warm to fire up the stove but too cold to sit in a 50-degree house. A wood stove is a blunt instrument.

That said, in terms of comfort, there is no comparing forced air and radiant.