Charcoal or something similar?

[Deezl Smoke]

I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to. According to the info here http://old.cbbqa.org/grilling/Btuchart.html if accurate charcoal has the same BTU content as my pellets. If I'm to believe the BTU numbers on my pellets (Northern Max) they are 9000 BTU per lb. same as charcoal. I paid $279 a ton which comes out to $5.58 per 40 lb. bag which is far cheaper than charcoal. It may be cheaper, easier and warmer in the long run to just add a second small stove and use as needed to combat the cold. This is just my opinion and I have no facts to back it up other than the little I've googled.

I like the fact that you did express your opinion, and in a very courteous manner.
Charcoal briquettes are limited somewhat as they are processed in a way to make them user friendly for bbq. The processing often uses additives to aid the briquette in even burning and sometimes add a smokey flavor. Lump charcoal, or unprocessed hard wood charcoal that is not ground up and does not have additives, likely will be much less expensive to manufacture.

If you google the btu out put of soybeans you might be surprised. I'd like to experiment like broudy is doing and make a hybrid pellet using soybeans as a binder and see how they work out. I think unprocessed charcoal and cheap, rancid soybeans could make a real hot flame. Maybe? Only way to find out is to try it and see. I hope to get to it soon.

 

[broudy]

I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to. According to the info here http://old.cbbqa.org/grilling/Btuchart.html if accurate charcoal has the same BTU content as my pellets. If I'm to believe the BTU numbers on my pellets (Northern Max) they are 9000 BTU per lb. same as charcoal. I paid $279 a ton which comes out to $5.58 per 40 lb. bag which is far cheaper than charcoal. It may be cheaper, easier and warmer in the long run to just add a second small stove and use as needed to combat the cold. This is just my opinion and I have no facts to back it up other than the little I've googled.

9000btu is not impossible with pellets, but does seem a little optimistic. Typically a good wood pellet is closer to about 8400. A couple things i wanted to point out.

1. You are comparing the btu of the pellets burned under a vaccum such as in a pellet stove (essentially a mini blast furnace with controlled method of introducing fuel) to the btu of charcoal burned in open air. The charcoal will burn much hotter under vaccum just as wood burns much hotter under vaccum. I have not found and #s on what the btu of charcoal would be while burned in the same type of environment as wood pellets.This is a major reason for why i have been testing out the charcoal.We do know that charcoal has a much lower moisture content and is higher in energy density. To put it into perspective charcoal with forced air has been used for centuries and still today to melt metals in different typles of smithing and even used steel production.

2. Pricing. Putting aside energy density for a moment, which is the real variable in pricing, there is another aspect to look at. You are comparing buying pellets in bulk by the ton to buying charcoal by the individual bag in a retail store. That is not apples to apples. If you bought charcoal either in bulk or wholesale you would find a price quite a bit lower. The part we are figuring out is if the difference in energy density. What is the cost per btu?

3. Charcoal would provide a few more benefits such as storage. Charcoal wont absorb moisture if it sits in an uncontrolled environment for too long like pellets. You can store it outside in the rain, keep it in a damp basement etc. For some storage isn't an issue, others it is. Also being that it is more energy dense you could hypothetically need 4 tons of charcoal if you typically burn 5 tons of pellets. This would free up space for those of us who dont have a very large area for pellet storage.