thinking about switching to a coal stove, opinions on good stoves/logistics?

[AKSHADOW]

I have been burning wood ever since I was under my parents tuteledge and I certainly do enjoy it. However, it's become quite the chore when I'm working full time, going to school half time, and working CONSTANTLY on a house I purchased last May. I was going to purchase a new wood stove in the summer (currently running a vc vigilant that I can barely keep a burn going for more than 3 hours in) but I am starting to thinking there is a easier/cheaper/less time consuming way to heat the home. I have good access to coal via a big coal mine here in Alaska and it got me thinking - all the time and effort, gas to put into splitter/saw/truck, the numerous times I have to handle wood that it is not really cheaper to cut my own wood than it would be to just pick up a load of coal...even if I do have to drive 150 miles to do it (which I do).

So I think I am pretty well set on going the coal route but since I have never burned coal (my father in-law however is all about it) I was hoping there was some good advice on the logistics of it and opinions on good stoves. I think the only supported brand that makes coal stoves in my area is Harmon, I'm not aware of any other major brands (other than VC) that still make them. So...anyone have any experience with the Harmon coal stoves? Thanks

 

[begreen]

If wood, many AK residents are happy with Blaze King cat stoves, particularly for their very long burn times. 12 hrs between fueling is not unusual. For coal, Hitzer has a good reputation. But first determine what type of coal it is and how the coal will be supplied (size and quality). Read up on the variety of options to decide for example if you want a stoker or not. There is an excellent coal forum at www.nepacrossroads.com which should be very helpful in answering questions about coal burning.

 

[pen]

Living in NEPA coal is priced pretty fairly. However, even here, I bet it's 10:1 for the number of people burning wood versus coal.

The biggest complaint with coal: dust. Pretty much no matter how careful you are, there will be black dust around.

Also, coal only really burns well when it's consistently below freezing. A day that warms up into the 40's is a pain w/ many coal stoves. My buddies who burn coal usually only do it for part of December, January, and February. The rest of the time they burn wood in their coal stove (which is quite inefficient) since the coal is too much of a pain if the draft isn't extremely strong.

pen

 

[precaud]

The Surdiac/Nestor Martin coal stoves have always been excellent. An ex-distributor is closing out his stock right now, it's a helluva deal:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Surdiac-Nestor-...135?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27b5255c6f

 

[NH_Wood]

Next door neighbor (good friend) burns a Harman coal stove. 1) awesome heat, 2) long burn times - definitely 12 hours consistently, but he often can go nearly 20 hours if temps remain reasonable, 3) huge mess - between the dust and ash, his basement stove room is VERY dirty (but, he also doesn't give 2 sh!ts and if he did, it might be manageable, 4) coals here is expensive - pretty sure he'd be paying over $300 per ton, but he buys in bags - 10 or so at a time, 5) it is not easy to get coal here - only one store within 30 miles that carries stove coal. That's about all the info I have - good luck! Cheers!

 

[ansehnlich1]

I burned Pennsylvania anthracite, both white ash and red ash, in a Baker coal stove. Burned nut coal. You can burn rice, pea, nut, and sometimes larger stuff they call stove coal around here.

Some coal stoves have automatic hoppers and gravity feed the pea or rice stuff. I understand they can keep the dust down a bit by wetting the coal prior to filling the hopper.

My coal stove was hand fed and tended 2x daily when it was cold, and when warmer, say from 40 to 60 degrees I could go 24 hours on a load. And yes, I'd still be able to hold a coal fire up to about 60 degrees, but it was only after becoming a seasoned veteran coal burner and knowing my stove.

Burning coal is way different than wood in terms of how the fire burns, how to do reloads, shaking the grates, etc. But it sure does put out the heat when needed.

I had a 3 ton box in my basement and the coal truck would back up to the basement window and just unload down a chute into that big bin. I'd shovel coal out from the bottom where I had a 3 inch high by 20 inch wide opening. It was a sweet setup.

For sure, black coal dust on everything, all over everything, including walls. I'll never burn coal again unless the coal fired unit is separate from my house and the heat is piped/pumped in some how.

 

[lowroadacres]

I will be curious as to how this works out for you.

We used coal for three winters at the same time as wood in our old Olsen Wood Electric furnace. The coal was from Powder River Wyoming and it was screened into 3-5 inch lumps at the Coal Fired Electrical Generating station not far from us. The power company, until recent regulation changes. was screening coal to sell to outside boiler users who needed stoker coal. As they were screening they needed to take out the lumps the size we needed.

It was incredible heat but yes, it was messy. Our furnace was in a rough unfinished basement where the mess was not much of an issue. The best way I found to manage it in our situation was to use large paper bags. I shoveled the coal into the large paper bags till half full, then folded them over, I carried into the basement and stacked them in a corner away from the furnace. Then I would get a small hot wood fire going and place the bag in the furnace.

The challenge we ran into was that the coal was so high in btu's that we ended up having to replace the warped grates in the furnace.

It is probably a good thing that the power plant isn't allowed to sell us coal anymore or I might be tempted to consider a coal stove.

Ironically much of my firewood comes from a wood lot in the shadow of the generating station across the river from our acreage.

 

[ShenValSteve]

My aunt used to come and spend a week helping my grandmother wash down the walls in their house every spring due to coal dust. Messy stuff. On the flip side, I spent a couple of nights with the lows down around -20F and had to sleep top on top of the covers. This was in WV where coal came pretty cheap.

 

[Hanko]

Id rather clean up wood mess than coal mess.

 

[kgrant]

I know I can sure smell a difference when I'm driving through an area where someone is burning coal. But you can also smell someone who isn't burning wood properly. I don't know if there is a clean and dirty way to burn coal. I know it can STINK. I have two friends who have neighbors that burn coal, they say the smell is awful.

A few years ago I looked into switching to coal. I didn't because of the smell and mess (inside and outside).

 

[Renovation]

I know I can sure smell a difference when I'm driving through an area where someone is burning coal. But you can also smell someone who isn't burning wood properly. I don't know if there is a clean and dirty way to burn coal. I know it can STINK. I have two friends who have neighbors that burn coal, they say the smell is awful.

A few years ago I looked into switching to coal. I didn't because of the smell and mess (inside and outside).

I have a neighbor who tried it one winter and said "never again".

 

[defiant3]

I've burned coal and it's great,BUT as already stated the QUALITY of the coal makes it or breaks it. I have suggested to many people before that coal is only as messy as you are, but that depends on other things too, like if the stove has a seperate ash pan door, does the door have to be open to shake it down, is the shaker grate good enough that you won't have to get in there with your poke rand dig around etc. Don't know what the deal is there in AK but here in NH many would argue that pellets are the new coal! Not the same of course but there are many advantages! I don't know , but mebbe chew on THAT.

 

[Dune]

"Pellets are the new coal". Glad to hear that. Pellets are certainly cleaner than coal, inside the home and out. The compromise; pellet stoves require a bit of maintainence. Coal fires do also though, so maybe that is a wash. As far as daily work goes, either saves labor over wood if one includes the processing time.

How far would you have to drive to get pellets? 150 miles is a pretty big commitment of time and fuel.

For the sake of general integrity, I have to throw out there; I grew up burning coal. We used a fancy modern (at the time) european coal stove. My mother was an immaculate housekeeper and I can't say the coal caused excess mess. We had a coal bin in an outbuilding and carried in a hopper full a day. Whenever we filled the stove, we brushed off the stove top. This single step may have prevented much mess, as well as the coal bin being outside the house.

With all that said, I an highly in favor of pellets over coal.

 

[KeithO]

The big question is what type of coal you have available. If it is bit coal, it is sort of like burning wood, except for a lot more ash which is pretty nasty on the lungs. For bit coal you will need a stove with a secondary air system, since coal releases massive quantities of hydrocarbons (making yellow flames). Anthracite coal is basically the closest thing to pure carbon. It is hard as rock and requires a very hot fire to get going. But with the low HC the stove needs no secondary air system and it burns with very little residue. The great thing with anthracite coal is that it burns with low maintenance. You get it going (which is a learning experience) then fill the hopper to the top, tweak the air based on how much heat you need and thats it. Twice a day shake down the ash, maybe top up the hopper and thats it.

Because of the way bit coal burns, it is similar to wood with a very hot flaming burn, followed by a longer coal phase. The significant difference is that the coal ash ends to smother bit coal during the latter part of the burn and so one really does need a stove with a shaker grate and a large ashpan for burning this stuff. Even with a shaker grate, you may still need to take a poker to break apart bit coal that expands and fuses together, blocking the path of ash down to the grates.

Given the length of the heating season in AK and the compactness of coal as a fuel, it would in all likelihood be a desirable fuel. Depending on what code requirements you have and access to materials, this could be a case where the best option may be to buy the large Harman manual stove and modify it for secondary burn if it turns out that all you have is bit coal. Here is a link to the Magnafire http://www.harmanstoves.com/products/details.asp?cat=stoves&prd=coal-stoves&f=MAGCSTVM3

***edit*** If it is the Usibelli mine you are referring to in Healy, AK, their website confirms that they mine sub bituminious coal. There are no purpose built stoves for burning bit coal, so as I suggested, you may want to modify a Harman stove, that will be the best bet. Without secondary air you will be setting yourself up for some serious chimney fires or a lot of brushing as well as making quite a bit of foul smoke. I occasionally burn bit coal in my pacific energy stove and with the secondary air system, one has a bit of a smell but nothing like what it would be if burnt in a "straight" coal stove. Something else to consider is that the ash from burning bit coal is quite toxic, so you don't want to be dumping it on your property. If you can take it to the landfill that would be a better idea. This is the same problem we all have with power stations, they "store" the ash in sludge ponds which are highly toxic and no-body knows what to do about it long term.. We all just want cheap electricity, right ?

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

I burn local Kentucky bituminous and wood. In a modern airtight appliance I find the coal overall cleaner than burning wood. Coals reputation as a soot and dust factory came from the old days of non airtight stoves like Warm Mornings. In a modern stove it doesn't produce any more dust than wood, assuming the operator takes their time loading. Yes, it smokes like the proverbial freight train when I reload, but about 20 minutes in you would never know I'm burning coal from the appearance of the stack.

I pay $85 per ton, either lump, egg or stoker size. That's 25-30 million BTU's for $85.00. All I do is shovel, no saw-no splitter-no stacking.

As mentioned above it doesn't burn especially well above 40 degrees, but with bit coal, switching back to wood simply means loading wood instead of coal. I usually run lump at night every night and burn wood during the day. If it's really cold or I need to be away several hours I'll burn coal in the daytime as well. That's with bit, anthracite is an entirely different fuel.

I'd encourage you to look at Hitzer Stove, D.S. Machine Stoves, Harman (Although they're high dollar) and to post your questions on nepacrossroads for additional input.

 

[RIDGERUNNER30]

Hey stephen, I see your from southern kentucky, what county are you in, I live in harlan county and work as a coal miner. I grew up up burning coal, but with all the free wood around here i got into burning wood. just wanted to say hi.

 

[AKSHADOW]

I appreciate all the replys, Ive been on NEPACrossroads for awhile soaking up the info on coal. I recently went picked up 2 tons of coal and have been burning it a bit here and there in my old vigilant. I have to say once it gets burning you cant see any smoke coming out of the stack and thats a 400 degree plus burn. Thats a stark contrast to what dry spruce looks like. I get the coal (Healy sub-bit), lets just say for a price I cant refuse, so it only makes sense to use that. Its a very low-sulfur coal, so they say. Starting to hone my sights on a Hitzer 82 furnace. Burn coal and wood and move the air around with ducting and not have to worry about all of the damn "science" to make the air move adequately around the house, which I can say has been a hassle in the least.