Coal vs Wood

You can't burn coal in most moden wood stoves since they have a bottom-back-sides unsulating firebrick buring box. You simply must have grates with the air coming up from the bottom. You need a lot of air for a a coal burn. I used to burn coal in my Riteway 37 in the early years, and in the later years only if I ran out of wood. It does produce sulfuric acid in the creosote, so I stopped burning it because it corroded the steel parts of my stove, and caused my exterior staniless steel stove pipe to "rot" out. In the long run, its much more expensive due to the extreme heat of the coals and the culfuric acid produced by Anthracite coal. Additionally, the coal dust coats everything, and you will have to repaint your walls every four years or so.

We burned coal growing up -- my dad still does -- and there was never any need to repaint walls etc. Very even heat, long burns, will easily stay lit and throw heat throughout the workday. Coal stoves will burn wood but are not ideal for that purpose -- no secondary wood combustion system and they can be hard to control when fully loaded w/ wood because of the coal-optimized secondary air inlets high in the firebox. We had a Coalbrookdale Darby, which uses gaps between the window glass pieces for secondary air, and you just cannot load that thing up the way you could a modern woodstove.

Jack768 said:

We burned coal growing up -- my dad still does -- and there was never any need to repaint walls etc. Very even heat, long burns, will easily stay lit and throw heat throughout the workday. Coal stoves will burn wood but are not ideal for that purpose -- no secondary wood combustion system and they can be hard to control when fully loaded w/ wood because of the coal-optimized secondary air inlets high in the firebox. We had a Coalbrookdale Darby, which uses gaps between the window glass pieces for secondary air, and you just cannot load that thing up the way you could a modern woodstove.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the case with my old Riteway 37. It was most a coal heater that also burned wood. If you filled it up with wood, even though it was an airtight, it could be very difficult to control. Filling the 6 cu ft firebox with wood would lead to bad back puffing, a stove that would heat up too fast for the thermostatic control to close down the draft, and then a stove pipe that would glow cherry red. Of course, it did none of those things when you burned coal. But getting the coal started could be a bear! it actually took me a whole burning season before I figured out how to get it to burn coal.

From the Jotul Oslo Manual . . .

Operations 5.0

DO NOT BURN
COAL * TREATED OR PAINTED WOOD
* GARBAGE * CHEMICAL CHIMNEY CLEANERS
* CARDBOARD * COLORED PAPER
* SOLVENTS * ANY SYNTHETIC FUEL OR LOGS

As for coal vs. wood . . . there was never a debate on this . . . I had free access to wood, but no free access to a coal mine. Therefore I went with a wood burning stove.

I love the idea of the steady heat of the coal, but I'm a pyro and always have been. There's just not as much romance in coal heat as there is in a wood fire.

neumsky said:

I wonder if a guy/gal... could use lump charcoal in this. Cool pic btw.

Click to expand...

You could use lump charcoal in most natural aspiration gravity feed coal stoves if the hopper could handle it. It would burn hot, be expensive, and have limited burn times.

KaptJaq

Our stove will take coal as it's got a grate and optional air inlets below the grate. I burned some coal last year as an experiment as I do have a load of coal left from the days when we had coal fires regularly. I'm not mad about burning coal from an environmental viewpoint, and the ash is a no-no on the garden, but it does burn very long and hot (best long burn in our stove is about 8 hours on a load of oak, but over 24 hours on a load of coal). The stash of coal we have is useful as a reserve, but I probably wouldn't rush out any buy any nowadays, it's about £350 - £400 per ton. If I want the smell of coal, I can go out and sniff the air any time a steam engine goes past on the preserved railway I volunteer on..........

I had a coal stoker stove that was removed to put in the wood stove. My house and yard are not set up right to allow easy delivery of coal, so I have to carry it by hand in 50# bags. Purchased in bags it was about the price of electric heat as I recall.

I like the process of finding, cutting, and burning wood so switching to wood was an easy decision for me. Here in my neighborhood there are a surprising number of newer homes with coal burners as the primary heat. If the house has a convenient way for a truck to deliver coal to a storage bin I don't get the impression that coal is a lot of work, but it does require more or less daily loading of the stove and unloading of ash.

The place where I bought my Hampton, S & S Heating is a small Amish run business. He has a shop and showroom. It is located on his farm. They have no electricity and heat the shop/showroom with one of the display stoves, it burns coal.

neumsky said:

Hello from OKC. It's fire time!

Click to expand...

Hi from Miami

It's 80 degrees here today

I've burnt both Bituminous and Anthracite in a hand stoked steam power boiler before. Under heavy steam load, it was nicer because you didn't have to stoke constantly (as with wood). Problem is that it is more expensive (wood was free), and we didn't feel comfortable pushing a 90 year old boiler that hard anymore.

Coal can be great as a sort of a base load heat producer. It'll burn 24/7 with much less intervention than wood and easily stay burning and producing heat all day when you're at work. In my childhood wood stoves would go out and be relit as circumstances required; a coal fire was on 24/7 November to April.

neumsky said:

You'd probably have a hard time selling your house afterwards due to the smell?

Click to expand...

With clean/low sulfur coal there is little or no smell. As with any stove, wood or coal, if it is properly installed the only place you will smell it is outside & down wind.

You've gotten the wood burners opinion here. As Pen said:

pen said:

If you asked the question on www.nepacrossroads.com, you'll have a different picture presented to you

Click to expand...

Go ask the same question to the coal burners...

KaptJaq

I have a Hitzer coal stove and I burn coal when the situation calls for a long continuous burn.
The wood stove is for situations where I know Ill only be in the room a few hours or more and I just want to heat that space for a short period.

Since I get coal for $170 ton and its deep mined Anthracite - it is a very effective and economical way to heat during the hawk of winter.
Not so good in the shoulder season.

neumsky said:

So...a coal stove is a special design than? Some of you can burn both?

Click to expand...

It is very difficult to design a stove that burns both optimally. Wood needs a LOT more air than coal. Coal has to get its air from underneath, while wood can burn from the top.

Nearly any coal stove will burn wood (although usually sub optimally - no baffle etc) but most wood stoves will not burn coal even close to right.

If you do burn wood in a coal stove there is no secondary burn mechanism (unless its a bit burner but that 2ndary burn mechanism is not really right for wood) and you need to run it on "high" or you will get a smoke dragon effect.

Yall aint hanging me.
I own both wood and coal stoves. I've swapped them from time to time as I like going back and forth for a change of scenery.
The romance/ambiance factor goes to wood.
The ability to throw consistent heat for a long period of time I'd say goes to coal.
Under the right conditions - coal can and will knock your socks off. When I have the chubby or penn stove going - and kicking it in full gear - I'm convinced aint no wood stove gonna even come close - looking at the coal lit up is like staring at the Sun with equal heat output.
There's some that like the smell of diesel in the a.m. - as do those that like burning coal.
I think someone mentioned creosote ? No such thing with coal - thats a safety advantage.
I really like scrounging for free wood - and enjoy the C/S/S piece of the wood idea.
If I had to buy wood or buy coal - coal is going to get the nod.
In some of the books I've read - here's one excerpt paraphrased --->
"In the old days - there was a reason folks PAID for coal when wood was free."
In my 30 year old Chubby stove I can go 18 hours on a single load. And at that 18hr mark its still >280F. Its just that coal is able to produce a long slow burn in some stoves where I start out at 500F and cruise at 300-350F for the remainder of the burn.
The only drawback I experience is the amount of ash - more than wood thats for sure.
My comments above are of course for burning hard coal - anthracite.
Not the soft coal - like that seen billowing out of a old steam locomotive.
Theres no visible smoke out of my stack when the coal stove is hooked up and going.

neumsky said:

Did any of you wood burners ever consider coal??? Or am I gonna get shot for asking this question lol?

Click to expand...

If you want to learn about burning coal check out this website:http://nepacrossroads.com/ Allot of people on that site switched to coal from wood and love it as apposed to hearth.com where the majority burn and favor wood. There are ups and downs to either side.

We burned coal in a Harman TLC 2000 for four years in our old house because I didn't have a wood supply. That stove threw some serious heat. When we moved, we installed a Vermont Castings coal (only) stove in our basement. We were not able to keep a hot fire burning with the stove damper closed. It could really heat up with the damper open but I didn't like the idea of so much heat going straight up the chimney. When we grew tired of having a cold living room (ground floor, opposite end of house from basement coal stove) despite basement temperatures over 80 degrees, we put a Pacific Energy Super 27 wood stove in our living room. After one winter of wood heat, we sold the coal stove (in one day on craigslist to a guy in the neighboring town) and put another Super 27 in the basement. We were paying about $200 a ton for hard coal and burning about 3 ton per year with was still much less than we we would've paid for oil in our 1979 Riteway boiler furnace. We grew tired of the dust and black film in the house and didn't like the smell of coal. Getting rid the ash wasn't a problem. I dumped it along the road for six years. The truck and tractor traffic from the neighboring farms packed it down. We are very happy with our wood stoves and have no problems having enough hot coals in the morning or after work to fire up the stove without restarting. After paying for two tri-axel loads of wood ($550 each) to get started, I have found enough wood from friends and neighbors that I will not have to buy wood for several years. I don't mind the work involved with cutting, splitting and stacking wood, at least for now, and enjoy keeping our home as warm as we want without burning a drop of foreign oil (other than gas an oil for my chainsaw). The wood stoves are much better in the fall and spring when we only want heat for part of the day but coal will burn hot for a very long time.

The first house i owned had a VC Vigilant and it was set up with the hopper for burning coal, and the previous owner actually left me 200lbs of coal, so i,burned that till it was gone and set the stove up to burn wood I liked the simplicity of,coal, sort of set it and forget it.