Is there a coal fired stove comparable to a Blaze King 1107?
I've never burned coal before, but I'm thinking of giving it a try.
I've never burned coal before, but I'm thinking of giving it a try.
Is there a coal fired stove comparable to a Blaze King 1107?
- Thread starter kgrant
- 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
Coal fired stoves are a completely different genre from wood burners. Different burn, different maintenance, different operation and different emisions. The forum over at www.nepacrossroads.com may be able to help you out here.
I understand it will be a different animal. Just need something that will burn for 12+ hours unattended and be able to heat a similar space as the BKK. I'll check out that forum, thanks.
SmokeyCity
Feeling the Heat
kgrant said:
Its easy to find a coal stove that will burn 12+ unattended. Coal burns slower than wood and thus burns longer.
Ive studied the same problem (looking for the longest burn) and have found the following brands to be the top choices
I have a Hitzer and it will burn a full day unattended and 2 days with just a shakedown after 24hrs
If you really want the multi day burns then get a stoker with a big hopper like the Liesure Line Pocono.
Hitzer
Harmon
Reading
DS Machine
Alaska
Leisure Line
I would be burning sub-bituminous coal.
I do have close neighbors and when I had my old smoke dragon, one complained about the smoke. Haven't had any complaints with the BK's. I have been around some people burning coal, and it had a bad odor. Is there a clean and dirty way to burn coal like there is wood?
I do have close neighbors and when I had my old smoke dragon, one complained about the smoke. Haven't had any complaints with the BK's. I have been around some people burning coal, and it had a bad odor. Is there a clean and dirty way to burn coal like there is wood?
Martin Strand III
New Member
BeGreen said:
I burn anthracite in a Harman TLC2000 wood/coal stove. It burns hot and clean (smokeless). It easily burns overnight. Anthracite is harder, has more carbon content, burns more efficiently, has less volatiles within it but puts out more CO2 (due to higher carbon content) than the less refined coals. It is considered "the clean coal" despite putting out much more CO2 than wood. CO2 output, versus putting out unburned volatiles - "VOC's" found in wood and coal, may not be related to "burning clean".
"Coal" is formed in the earth from organic matter compressed over time (lots of both: compression, time) in a spectrum beginning with peat moss and ending in graphite, finally diamond. The sequence, from less refined to more refined (higher % C), and conversely, from more volatiles to less volatiles, goes like this:
Peat moss ---> Lignite ---> Sub-bithuminous ---> Bithuminous ---> Anthracite ---> Graphite ---> Diamond
So, for home heat, burning "coal" is like burning wood. "Clean burning" depends on the choice of fuel made by the operator; which coal, wet or dry wood.
Aye,
Marty
Choice of fuel appears to be determined by the region. I think we are all bituminous here. Stinky stuff, that now appears to be headed for China 
.
.Rich L said:
The Blaze King is working great, no complaints with it. I want a coal stove that will be as easy to use, burn as long or longer, and give similar heat output as the Blaze King. I have access to coal now, so I thought I'd give it a try.
Thanks for the info Marty. So maybe my neighbors wouldn't like me much if I started burning sub-bituminous.
Martin Strand III
New Member
kgrant said:
My observations tell me some burn whatever they want and don't care what anyone thinks.
Personal choices can make you either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Aye,
Marty
Steve Z
New Member
BeGreen said:Choice of fuel appears to be determined by the region. I think we are all bituminous here. Stinky stuff, that now appears to be headed for China
That's quite true. If I were not in New England and had access to anthracite coal, I probably wouldn't be using it. But the fact that I can get it for a decent price made me convert my Glenwood cookstove to coal and also use my Herald cylinder stove. The Herald is a world class coal burner. It has an indirect backpipe on it that lengthens the travel of the exhaust. Both these stoves will burn round the clock with tending every 12 hours or so depending on how cold it is. For me, cost versus wood was about a push. That said, I didn't have to saw, split and season the coal. Much less work. Don't have to refire the cookstove every day either which would not go overnight. If you are carefull with the shaking and ashes, it's no more "dirty/dusty" than wood. Also, waking up in the morning with a warm kitchen? Priceless!
Martin Strand III
New Member
BeGreen said:Choice of fuel appears to be determined by the region. I think we are all bituminous here. Stinky stuff, that now appears to be headed for China
Yes, burning bituminous coal is burning the "stinky" coal. In fact, The Government of the People's Republic of China issued a ban on burning this coal to industry (a major world burner of the stinky coal) around Beijing months before the start of the Olympic Games held there in August, 2008. The smog and air quality was so bad, they feared attendance at the games would suffer without issuing a widespread ban of coal burning.
Likewise, in Los Angeles, CA, something similar happened to reduce the smog for the Olympics there in the 1980's.
Individually, we have the choice to burn clean (solution) or not (problem). For me, if local materials were not available for me to burn clean, I would not burn. Unfortunately, each of our choices may affect the rest of us. Smoking tobacco is analogous. If it affected only the user, it his/her choice. This seems fair. However, we now know the harm from secondary smoke and "the rest of the story".
My 2 cents...
Aye,
Marty
I'm not sure, but I think I read recently that China has some anthracite and lignite. There is a controversy in WA state now about building a port to ship local bituminous to China.
Martin Strand III
New Member
BeGreen said:
FYI, China is third as a world source of (all) coal(s): lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. China mines approximately 1/2 of what the US does as the world leader in coal mining. Russia is second.
China also has significant underground coal fires that have been burning, and will continue to burn, uncontrolled for many decades. The US has this going on also out west and in PA. China's underground burn is so vast, I read it could account for as much as 3% of the CO2, global warming, etc.
It's a jungle out there...
Aye,
Marty
I'm late to the discussion, but I burn Ky bit which is a hard grade of Bituminous between the Anthracite Marty burns and the sub bit you have access to. On my bit, with proper technique I only have significant effluent for the first 10-15 minutes after I load. For the remaining 8-10 hours here's exactly what's coming out of my chimney:
There is a noticeable sulfur smell during the initial volatile burn off that I suspect will be even more pronounced with sub bit. During this 10-15 minutes it does in fact smoke like the proverbial freight train, but from then on, most people aren't aware I'm burning any solid fuel what so ever.
I'd caution you that most modern appliances, certainly all those listed above, are designed to burn Anthracite. Burning bit is much more like burning wood than Anthracite is. While bit does need some underfire air it is much less picky about over/under fire air than Anthracite. As a matter of fact, I often burn wood throughout the day & switch to coal for long overnight burns. With bit it's simply a matter of what fuel to load next.
ETA: I pay $85/ton for my coal. It's just about the cheapest way available to heat.
There is a noticeable sulfur smell during the initial volatile burn off that I suspect will be even more pronounced with sub bit. During this 10-15 minutes it does in fact smoke like the proverbial freight train, but from then on, most people aren't aware I'm burning any solid fuel what so ever.
I'd caution you that most modern appliances, certainly all those listed above, are designed to burn Anthracite. Burning bit is much more like burning wood than Anthracite is. While bit does need some underfire air it is much less picky about over/under fire air than Anthracite. As a matter of fact, I often burn wood throughout the day & switch to coal for long overnight burns. With bit it's simply a matter of what fuel to load next.
ETA: I pay $85/ton for my coal. It's just about the cheapest way available to heat.
Steve Z
New Member
Believe me Steve, If I could get good Eastern Kentucky bit I'd be using it. Up here it's anthracite only although there was a time, before the trains stopped and they turned the tracks into 4 wheeler and snowmobile trails that it was available. Now it's pretty much anthracite only and that's getting pricey. I'm afraid that it would be cost prohibitive this far North.
I certainly like it! 28-30 million BTU's for $85, no cutting/splitting/stacking and it keeps forever. I can get that price down considerably by ordering 8+ tons which is the plan for this year.
- Status
