Wood versus Coal stoves

If you are considering replacing it with a coal stove (not insert), and want to use it as a primary heat source, and you have anthracite available in your area (you do), then coal is certainly the way to go. I would look at a stoker, by either Keystoker, Harman, Leisure Line, or Alaska. They run with rice coal, feed themselves automatically, attach to a thermostat for easy heat control and conservation of coal, and you only need to clean out the ashes once every other day, give or take. The mess is minimal, and is greatly overstated by most. I've seen several in operation, and the dust is the same as with a wood stove... plus no mess and debris from bringing wood into your house, etc. If you are considering replacing the insert you have, then you have several options, including the Hitzer inserts. Not stokers, but gravity fed using nut and pea coal.
Basically, for a consistent heat source with little tending, unlike wood stoves, coal is the way to go. I have been toying with the idea for the past few years, and am currently split between a Keystoker 90 mounted in the basement (using the optional air duct on top to port the air into the first floor of the house), or a coal boiler in the basement plumbed into my hot water/forced air system. Take a look over here, these guys are to coal as we here on HearthNet are to wood.

-- Mike

A couple informative articles on coal in our info section.

As per mike, I would suggest using a coal Hearth Stove, NOT an insert, for best operation and efficiency.

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/choose_coal/
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/coal_stoves/
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/coaltips

Hmmm, Doesn't coal pollute as in greenhouse gasses and all that environmental stuff? I know they consider wood to be carbon neutral. They say burning wood efficiently is equal to what gases it would have given off if left to rot on the ground.
I grew up with a coal furnace and we used to burn coal in the pot belled stoves in the Cabooses when I worked at the railway.

Hard coal is very clean burning - still, it does produce greenhouse gases, CO2 and stuff. But it is usually much cheaper than oil, and is smokeless....people use it because it is clean, cheap and relatively local....mined in Pennsylvania.

As to inserts and stoves, you can find some decent coal inserts like Harman and maybe Hitzer. But in general, a stove will produce more efficiency and radiant heat. Inserts trap some heat back in the fireplace. Also, coal burns best when in a deep bed, and inserts cannot be too tall or will not fit back in. A hearth stove can be taller, allowing for easier loading, etc.

The biggest thing for me with wood is that it is much more renewable and local. From what I understand (this may be limited) coal mining is pretty rough on the local environment. Most of the wood I get around here is left over after logging and would otherwise be left to rot in the woods. Also property management by friends who call me up to see if I want the tree. Using a renewable left over heat source is personally very important to me. I have two buddies who burn rice coal and seem t like it.

Maybe you should try mixing coal with wood before totally axing the insert if your stove is capable of burning coal . Try just a handful or 2 at first.

Unless you have free wood in your backyard I would consider coal. Thought process being if your going to pay for wood you may as well pay for coal...more bang for your buck, 1/10 of the handling nonsense involved with wood and a more even heat.

Sure it's nice to look at a wood fire burning in these new EPA stoves but...

...for example I just came in from dragging logs up that I cut last year. I like to stage 'em behind the house so I can cut an split at my leisure...even if a couple 3 times a day for 45min at a time. Now the area behind the house where the dogs run is all muddy and I have to wipe their feet off before they can come in. ...it's always something with wood.

I don't mind cutting and splitting so much as felling the trees...now you have to worry about hang ups, then the tree rolling over on you as you limb it. Oh they you have to dick with the limbs so they don't impale your tractor...nothing easy with wood.

damn with coal you don't even have to cover it. Bring it into the house in a 5 gal bucket...and there's your 24 hrs of heat...too easy.

edit to add...like I said with wood it's always something. I just cut up 4 trees and decided since all was going well to haul up another 4 and with 3 different areas of staged trees every damn one of them is frozen together. So now I'm back to get my heavy duty spud bar and see if I can't pry some apart...it's always something. Well I'm outie for another hour or so...

I truely enjoyed heating with wood for just over 30 years. I've cut down trees, bought logs, bought wood cut, split and delivered, as the opportunity presented itself. Now with retirement comming up I plan to heat my garage 3 or 4 days a week and do some work out there. I just don't have enough space to have 10 dry cords for the house, 8 dry cords for the garage, 10 green cords drying for the house and another 8 green cords drying for the garage. That would be a total of 36 face cords on the property each summer. That would also mean processing 18 new cords each year and feeding wood 2 wood stoves 18 cords each winter.

This is what prompted me to explore the advantages of burning coal in the house where I need a fire 24/7 October through early April.
Coal takes up about 1/4 the space of wood for the same heat output. Coal requires very little handling between delivery and burning. Coal is much cleaner to handle in the house (I buy oiled coal). It produces no coal dust when poored into the hopper of my Hitzer 30-95 gravity fed hopper stove. On an average winter day I can shake the grates and poor coal into the hopper at 7am and 7pm, and empty the ash pan once every 3rd time I shake the grates. Many coal bruners light one fire per heating season!

I recommend to anyone who has to pay for wood, wants to heat 24/7 and has access to coal to seriously consider making the switch.

I just wanted to point out besides the Hitzer 503 which I have only read great things about you can also find stoker hearth models by Alaskan, Leisure Line and I am sure others. I am in the same boat. My Lopi Reveer insert will be going up for sale and I will be replacing it with a coal stove. I like the Hitzer but the advantage of the stoker stove is that it holds more coal, doesn't need to be shaken, and has a thermastat to control temperature. Also since it is a hearth stove it sits in front of the fireplace and should give more radiant heat. The down side to the stoker stove compared to the Hitzer is that there is a motor to run the stoker and a fan to control the burn and of course another fan to distribute heat. I priced the hitzer and it is around 2K and the Leisure line hearth is 2,300. I think for the the extra $300 I prefer having a thermastat and the ability to load up more coal at 1 time for longer burns between tending the fire.

so let's see. As I burn wood in my old defiant type smoke dragon, it might be sturdy
enough to accept a handful of coal on occasion. Kind of like a wood/coal mix. uhmm

The stove has a nice bed of ashes to protect the stoves' bottom from extreme heat plus the wood
sits on a mini type rack keeping the wood off the bottom. Just would not know how it will behave
when I close the bypass. I do monitor the magnetic flue temp gauge.
just wondering.
-gary

If you end up looking at a stoker, look up the "Coal-Troal" thermostat. It is apparently the best on the market, and will increase your stove's efficiency.

-- MW

Garyvol you need grates to burn coal...and there's a trick to it as well. the poster 'berlin' is one of the subject matter experts around here.

Yeah and the coal-trol comes standard on the leisure line stoves. I believe they are available on most other stokers but there is an up-charge.