im done with pellets
- Thread starter ad356
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
TimfromMA
Minister of Fire
Having multiple heat sources helps shield you from sharp fuel price increases. The only heating options available to me right now are electric, oil and pellets. While pellets are more expensive than oil right now, I’ve already got 2 season’s worth of pellets bought and paid for.
Ambient
Member
The OP stated he sold his Harman. I agree as you stated, going with the best option, and in my case I prefer the most affordable and greenest. The pellets in my area are the same as last year.
side note about the OT VW thing: I referenced the business end of the VW deal and how buying into the shiniest technology may not pay off in the end. It seemed like a good idea when they bought them, (I almost did last year), now no matter what the owners will suffer a financial loss of an unknown extent such as devaluation, fuel milage and the actual time and travel to repair.
Btw, VW is to retrofit the cars with the 3-4k$ Urea converters, how,when and where is yet unknown.
alternativeheat
Minister of Fire
Pellets here are about the same too. Difference is oil is down. So I will lean on the oil burner a bit more and use both this winter. I will limit my use of pellets to two tons for mid winter figuring oil is bound to be more then than now.
Coal we burned for more than 35 years. We wanted a more automated stove going into retirement. A Stoker would have bern great but no rice coal in our area. So we went pellets and this will be our 3rd winter burning pellets. Basically the stove will heat the entire main house minus an attached apartment we rent out. That is on oil 100%. But when oil is low like now working the stove that hard doesn't make sense to me. We did the same with coal over the years. Ya know back when oil was a buck a gallon. But I'm not changing out entire heat sources over $40 a month that may or may not be temporary. Not when stoves cost $3000 and $4000.
Coal we burned for more than 35 years. We wanted a more automated stove going into retirement. A Stoker would have bern great but no rice coal in our area. So we went pellets and this will be our 3rd winter burning pellets. Basically the stove will heat the entire main house minus an attached apartment we rent out. That is on oil 100%. But when oil is low like now working the stove that hard doesn't make sense to me. We did the same with coal over the years. Ya know back when oil was a buck a gallon. But I'm not changing out entire heat sources over $40 a month that may or may not be temporary. Not when stoves cost $3000 and $4000.
Last edited:
i havent been on here in a while so i though i would chime in. i bought my keystoker 90k for $800 paid $100 to have it dropped off. spend a little more for floor protection and black pipe. i put an old masonry chimney back into service for coal only use. coal does not generate the high flue temperatures OR the creosote risks involved in burning wood so its much safer. i probably have $1,000 into my stove TOTAL
i sold the harman for $1,700 i was in a way sad to see it go but it wasn't feasible for me to keep it, i needed the money to help fund my heating source changes. it was a decent heater but it ate pellets like they were going out of style (maybe they are).
i bought a 4 ton bulk load of anthracite rice coal the total bill came to $1040 including delivery. that was $240 per ton plus $20 per ton delivery. it no longer makes any sense to buy pellets it coal is available reasonably. the industry is doing this to themselves. i expect the 4 ton of coal to last as long as 7 tons of pellets i burned last year.
the math:
if a ton of pellets contains 14 million btu.... 7 tons burned 7 x 14 = 98 million btu aprox last winter (extremely cold winter)
if a ton of coal contains 25 million btu 4 tons expected 4 x 25 = 100 million btu
the 7 tons of pellets cost on average $1800 IF you pay $260 per ton average
the 4 tons of coal costs me $1040. expected savings aprox $700. it wont take long to get my return from my hassle of making the changes in my home.
i really wish that i had bought a harman mag stoker when i bought my P61, not that i dont like harman products (at least coal was one of their products at the time). the keystoker so far seems to be a really well built unit as well. unfortunately the dealer had talked me into the harman pellet stove and not the harman coal stove that i should have bought.
the price of pellets do not add up anymore. back when i started burning pellets it was $160 per ton. it has gone up every year for the last 5 years $20-$25 per ton. its not like it only went up $20 in the last few years, its almost $20 increase PER year. as far as my stove, its has been running today as the high was 50 degrees. it has been running since last night, last night's low was 40 degrees. i have the stoker turned down and its very control-able even when it was 53 degrees out the inside temp was 70. its produces less heat on the lowest setting then the pellet stove did and barely uses any coal.the downside is that its not as quick to respond to thermostat settings, and takes longer to establish a sustainable fire. overall the pluses seem to out-way the cons by far. if good pellets cost $260 per ton and good coal can be had for about the same if you shop around but a ton of coal contains over 10 million more BTU per ton do pellets make sense? only if you cant get coal.
P.S.
anthracite burns very clean, look at what comes out of my chimney you wouldnt even know the stove is running. there are allot of misconceptions about coal and this is one of them. anthracite is very clean, its no dirtier then natural gas. bituminous is where coal gets its dirty reputation and everyone seems to think that all coal is the same
i sold the harman for $1,700 i was in a way sad to see it go but it wasn't feasible for me to keep it, i needed the money to help fund my heating source changes. it was a decent heater but it ate pellets like they were going out of style (maybe they are).
i bought a 4 ton bulk load of anthracite rice coal the total bill came to $1040 including delivery. that was $240 per ton plus $20 per ton delivery. it no longer makes any sense to buy pellets it coal is available reasonably. the industry is doing this to themselves. i expect the 4 ton of coal to last as long as 7 tons of pellets i burned last year.
the math:
if a ton of pellets contains 14 million btu.... 7 tons burned 7 x 14 = 98 million btu aprox last winter (extremely cold winter)
if a ton of coal contains 25 million btu 4 tons expected 4 x 25 = 100 million btu
the 7 tons of pellets cost on average $1800 IF you pay $260 per ton average
the 4 tons of coal costs me $1040. expected savings aprox $700. it wont take long to get my return from my hassle of making the changes in my home.
i really wish that i had bought a harman mag stoker when i bought my P61, not that i dont like harman products (at least coal was one of their products at the time). the keystoker so far seems to be a really well built unit as well. unfortunately the dealer had talked me into the harman pellet stove and not the harman coal stove that i should have bought.
the price of pellets do not add up anymore. back when i started burning pellets it was $160 per ton. it has gone up every year for the last 5 years $20-$25 per ton. its not like it only went up $20 in the last few years, its almost $20 increase PER year. as far as my stove, its has been running today as the high was 50 degrees. it has been running since last night, last night's low was 40 degrees. i have the stoker turned down and its very control-able even when it was 53 degrees out the inside temp was 70. its produces less heat on the lowest setting then the pellet stove did and barely uses any coal.the downside is that its not as quick to respond to thermostat settings, and takes longer to establish a sustainable fire. overall the pluses seem to out-way the cons by far. if good pellets cost $260 per ton and good coal can be had for about the same if you shop around but a ton of coal contains over 10 million more BTU per ton do pellets make sense? only if you cant get coal.
P.S.
anthracite burns very clean, look at what comes out of my chimney you wouldnt even know the stove is running. there are allot of misconceptions about coal and this is one of them. anthracite is very clean, its no dirtier then natural gas. bituminous is where coal gets its dirty reputation and everyone seems to think that all coal is the same
Michael6268
Minister of Fire
I been sayin that for years.
Cheaper per btu, burns as clean as natural gas, little or no dust in the fuel, no cleaning required every few days.
Where were you when I was preaching that on this forum? Being sucked into the pellet propaganda! LOL
Your words are mostly falling on deaf ears here though. But be happy. At least coal won't turn into the overpriced, price gouging fiasco like pellets , and you will actually be saving money. Welcome to the dark side of burning coal!
Cheaper per btu, burns as clean as natural gas, little or no dust in the fuel, no cleaning required every few days.
Where were you when I was preaching that on this forum? Being sucked into the pellet propaganda! LOL
Your words are mostly falling on deaf ears here though. But be happy. At least coal won't turn into the overpriced, price gouging fiasco like pellets , and you will actually be saving money. Welcome to the dark side of burning coal!
Bioburner
Moderator
i have enough common sense to know that $1,800 to heat a 1500 sq foot home is absurd. i burned 7 tons last winter and the house was lucky to be 63 degrees a room away from the stove. it was a miserable winter yes but regardless too little heat for too much money. even though coal went up a little it remains to be the hottest, most economical heat on planet earth according to any price comparison chart you will ever see. its more economical then cord wood, pellets, oil, propane, electric, and yes even the "almighty" natural gas. my stove and the coal is bought and paid for....... and I and my wife are going to warm and happy. my next step is to further improve the heat retention on this old home
another nice thing about coal is it literally keeps until the end of time, unlike pellets that got to snot once you get them wet. i could eventually buy several years of supply and never worry about them going bad, its hundreds of years old anyways. i can leave coal out in the elements and it will still burn.... hell you can even burn them wet.
bogieb
Minister of Fire
tiger
Feeling the Heat
Where's the research grant to develop a multi-fuel stove that will equally well burn pellets, wood, coal, NG, LPG, oil, politicians...?
And buy whatever fuel is cheapest this season.
LuvMyPellets
Burning Hunk
fire_man
Minister of Fire
I know I'm a voice in the wilderness in the pellet forum but the most economical source of heat is scrounged firewood. I know it's not for everyone, but the advantages are it's good exercise, It fully insulates you from gouging and price swings, and it's fun.
I have no problem with burning coal to heat your house but i am sorry this statements is just plain wrong where did you get that info?
Michael6268
Minister of Fire
First I speak from experience and second look anywhere on the internet and do some research.Anthracite coal is as clean if not cleaner than natural gas. Bituminous coal is the dirty stuff that you are probably referring to. As you will see, my friend. You are the wrong one!! Please get your facts straight before inserting your foot in your mouth!
Source:http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
alternativeheat
Minister of Fire
Hmmm, my house is moderately well insulated and I burned less than 4-1/2 tons, 1800 sq ft. in New England with lots of wind. I'd like to tighten up some more. I had 0 problems heating the house into the mid 70's with my P61 ( next room over from the stove as well) though did opt to help it out on the sub 0 days if for no other reason than to circulate heat in the system, basement etc.. You're going to work on tightening up and it sounds like you really need to because any Harman built and working right should heat a well insulated 1500 sq ft house. You're gonna lose heat with coal too regardless if the stove keeps up or not. I suspect your cold corners of the house will remain as such regardless of the extra BTU's even if that be proportionate to over heating the stove room in the coldest weather.. Don't judge by conditions now, any stove will heat about any house in the shoulder season. Let us know how you make out in mid winter and if you won with the coal stove then, then wonderful !
Understand that I like heating with coal, I'm not bashing your change at all if you can get coal at reasonable rates where you are. Here we can not and bulk deliveries are far and few between, especially for rice coal. It's why I changed to pellets, not because I didn't like coal, quite the contrary. In the end it's still a stove though , doesn't cover over bad insulation or put heat all around the out skirt of the house like most central heating systems do.
Last edited:
Excuse me but i live and work in central pa wich has some of the best anthracite coal deposits around i clean and service many coal burners and burnt coal in my house for a number of years so i have allot of experience with many different coal units all burning anthracite . Just because you see no smoke does not mean they are clean burning. If it was as clean as ng then you could perceivably have a vent less coal burner right? They are not anywhere near as clan burning as ng. In powerplants with all of their scrubbers and emission controls yes they can get close but not your stove at home. I am sorry but you are still wrong.
Grisu
Minister of Fire
See Figure 20, page 54: https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/71376.pdf
Coal stoves are maybe about 2 to 3 times better as pellet stoves with 0.5 g/kg total particulate: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00022470.1982.10465413
Still a far cry from natural gas.
And honestly particulates and co2 are only a small part of the emissions from coal. There is also sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides. Sulfur oxides are large contributes to acid rain.
DneprDave
Minister of Fire
Anthracite coal releases almost twice as much Carbon Dioxide as Natural gas, when burned.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
Besides Carbon Dioxide, There are Oxides of Nitrogen, Mercury, and other heavy metals like Lead and Arsenic.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
No, Coal is way dirtier than Natural Gas
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
Besides Carbon Dioxide, There are Oxides of Nitrogen, Mercury, and other heavy metals like Lead and Arsenic.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
No, Coal is way dirtier than Natural Gas
Michael6268
Minister of Fire
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant per EPA
Mercury and the heavy metals dont pollute the air. They are in the ash.
Most of the contaminants mentioned are in bituminous coal not anthracite.
Mercury and the heavy metals dont pollute the air. They are in the ash.
Most of the contaminants mentioned are in bituminous coal not anthracite.
Still wrong sulfur and nitrogen oxides are in anthracite as well.
Yes and then they pollute the ground and water. And yes ash is carried out the stack.
So if it is as clean as ng would you burn coal in your house unvented like many do with kitchen stoves or other unvented gas appiances?
velvetfoot
Minister of Fire
I'm imagining how much it would cost to buy the all the equipment to burn any possible fuel? Probably a lot. 
velvetfoot
Minister of Fire
Michael6268
Minister of Fire
Anthracite is 92-98% pure carbon
The other 2-8% does have some impurities.
Was never talking about ash disposal, only air quality.
Yes, technically coal is a little less clean than NG, but it is far cleaner than pellets and wood and is by no means the messy dirty pollutant most people make it out to be. Quite the opposite!
- Status
Similar threads
