Coal vs Wood

[Bron]

I am wondering if Coal is the better way to go or is wood. I have a Doublewide in the country in UpState NY. We get cold here and my wife likes it HOT or VERY warm. Which is "better"?? I have heard a ton on the wood stoves just thought I would find out a bit on Coal.

 

[dumbodog00]

Coal has its advantages. It can be stored in less space and generally has a reduced risk for chimney fires. Some say it is messier. You are at the liberty of the coal supplier which are harder and harder to find. Wood can be scrounged for free, but requires more work. You can have coal delivered and have little work, compared to wood. These are a few things I could come up with real quick.

 

[Plumbit]

http://nepacrossroads.com/forum-71.html
I've have a wood/coal boiler heating 3300 sq feet that is better suited for wood. The wood I've used is mostly free but I have used a ton of nut coal to try out at 330 a ton in bags it was a longer burn time but the learning curve is steep in my case due to the size of my fire box in the boiler. So the wood has been much faster to learn, The web sit above runs the same way as this one and the people are really helpful same as here. I think one would have to sign up to get awnsers. I your case a coal stove might be less effort than wood, but maybe get a combo and try both. Check out the forum and do lots of research. Good Luck !

 

[mtarbert]

Buy a ton of coal and let it sit for five years and you will have a ton of coal do that with wood and you will have a coard of sawdust and a very large condo for a zillion bugs. Coal is forever but I have never gotten a ton of coal for free after a storm.

 

[Plumbit]

One more thing the coal cleaned out my fire tubes and fire box and the output of smoke was very little,

 

[JustWood]

I LOVE COAL ! I have a wood/coal combo furnace and love it.
I get 16 hour burn times on a full load of wood+10 lbs of coal and like plumbit says it helps keep the stove guts and chimney clean. I pay $50/ton for bituminous coal at the mine 65 miles from my place.

 

[Wet1]

If I had to pay for wood, I'd burn coal instead. Coal burns hotter, cleaner, longer, and is easier to store.

 

[LeonMSPT]

I am still learning with the wood/coal boiler, but it's shaping up that coal is just so much better in it that I am considering going over to coal entirely in that, saving the wood for the insert in the living room < 10 degrees or so out..,

Wood/coal boiler isn't "quite" there as the house is rated 130K, boiler is 90K... very cold nights and days, the fireplace insert comes into play to reduce the load and extend burn times on the boiler.

I get a cord or two of wood "free" yearly... and buy the rest. It's dirty, dusty, sawdust and splinters. It takes up way more room than coal, and it gets picked up one piece at a time, loaded into the wheelbarrow, and unloaded the same way. Coal is in a bag... two bags, about a day's worth.

If I had to pay for wood, I'd burn coal instead. Coal burns hotter, cleaner, longer, and is easier to store.

 

[JustWood]

I tried burning straight coal in my furnace and it didn't work well on real cold nights. It might be the coal, as different seams of coal have different properties. Different furnaces/boilers may run differently also. Before you limit yourself to straight coal and not stockup on wood you may want to experiment burning just coal a few times to see how it goes. I know it works best for me to run 10lbs of coal to a load of wood.