I don't want to get run out of the club but here goes - Coal

[lcgillis]

In my quest to replace my old VC encore, (was looking at harman or jotul), thanks to everyone for their feedback, I have had a couple of dealers recomend coals stoves. My thoughts were always that they were dirty and messy. These dealers are telling me they are clean, burn cleaner, burn longer, and throw off really good heat. Does anyone have any experience with coal burning stoves?

Thanks

 

[sgcsalsero]

In my quest to replace my old VC encore, (was looking at harman or jotul), thanks to everyone for their feedback, I have had a couple of dealers recomend coals stoves. My thoughts were always that they were dirty and messy. These dealers are telling me they are clean, burn cleaner, burn longer, and throw off really good heat. Does anyone have any experience with coal burning stoves?

Thanks

Burn him, burn him at the stake !


. . .okay, just kidding, sorry I had to. I've read hundreds of posts here and don't recall a good coal one, closest thing I can remember is that a couple guys throw in pieces of coal in their wood stoves, but not a lot & use caution b/c of soot accumulation

edit: here's a post I found https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/11789/

 

[smokinj]

In my quest to replace my old VC encore, (was looking at harman or jotul), thanks to everyone for their feedback, I have had a couple of dealers recomend coals stoves. My thoughts were always that they were dirty and messy. These dealers are telling me they are clean, burn cleaner, burn longer, and throw off really good heat. Does anyone have any experience with coal burning stoves?

Thanks

i can burn either wood or coal

 

[lcgillis]

Here's another quick question more on the wood line - if two stoves have a similar size firebox 2.3 and 2.1 how can one stove claim to have a 70,000 BTU and the other a 47,000 btu output? Doesn't make any sense to me

 

[smokinj]

Here's another quick question more on the wood line - if two stoves have a similar size firebox 2.3 and 2.1 how can one stove claim to have a 70,000 BTU and the other a 47,000 btu output? Doesn't make any sense to me

by the way it is build air intake and by exuast how much will it take (heat)

 

[SteveT]

Here's another quick question more on the wood line - if two stoves have a similar size firebox 2.3 and 2.1 how can one stove claim to have a 70,000 BTU and the other a 47,000 btu output? Doesn't make any sense to me

Here's a thread to check out....

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Understanding_Stove_Ratings/

The Webmaster stated a few week back that the capacity ratings a basically meaningless. There is no standardized test so they can conjure up any number the marketing people want.

Even with that bear in mind that the ratings are not BTU - they are BTU/hour. So one stove could be tested at a "fast burn" and put out 70,000 BTU for an hour while the other puts out 47,000 BTU /hour but burns at that rate for 1.5 hours.

 

[sl7vk]

Burning wood in my neighborhood, with an EPA approved stove, no problem.

Burning coal which contributes to countless respitory illnesses in my neighborhood = brick through front window.

Now if you live in an area with lots of coal burning, or if you have a LOT of shoulder room...., and you don't really care about how "green" a fuel is..... Then yes, coal throws off a lot of heat, and in most area's is less expensive to heat then wood (assuming you buy all of your wood, and also assuming coal prices don't skyrocket like all other fossil fuels)....

Storage is another issue with coal. Woodpiles can be attractive, and at worst, aren't an eyesore. A huge pile of coal in the driveway might be a different story.

 

[savageactor7]

If we didn't have our own source of wood we'd be burning coal...it less expensive than wood and way less handling too.

 

[webbie]

Some good articles about coal in our Articles section:
https://www.hearth.com/what/specific.php

scroll down - bottom of right side of page

 

[webbie]

I have burned a lot of coal stove, so ask away. In general, it is a good fuel for 24/7 use if you don't have free or cheap wood available. Just as with pellets, though, you must have multiple local sources of the fuel - don't tie yourself to just one vendor or you can be out of luck.

It takes some time to learn how to use coal - and it takes a while to get started and going - but once it is going it will burn longer, etc. than wood.

 

[jeff6443]

I went to happy valley alaska fishing . The lodge used coal that the owner would ride up the shore , vains of it on the cliffs . earthquakes everyday would drop a little (Alaska is still ALIVE ) He had a shed to keep sun off it and dry he said its the sitty coal not like PA . . thats what they burned it was nice warm and dirty . And Thats All I Have To Say About That jm

 

[Rockey]

Pros and cons to throwing a lump of coal in my Englander 30 every once in a while?

 

[oak194]

Just my 2 cents on coal. Anthracite that is...

Coal is great burns alot longer than wood, and is currently $135 a ton.
Stokers are much cleaner to run than a hand fired if you have it in your main living area, just when you fill a stoker turn off the blower, and you'll get a lot less dust. And if you get coal that has been oiled the dust is very minimal from filling.
Stay away from an old hand fired unit they tend to coat everything is a thin layer of fly ash(dust).

I used to burn coal for years but have now switched to wood, reason being I'm now 1 1/2 hrs from the coal yard.

 

[Dix]

Burned coal when I was a kid (anthracite). My Mom got furious in the 70's, when oil went to 12 cents a gallon :roll: and put them in. They said she was crazy , yeah like a fox :lol:

2 stoves kept 2000 SQF house toasty, I'm talking shorts and tank tops.

Those stoves were older, a pot belly, and a 1930's type cook stove, we cooked on it all winter (which was an awesome thing). There WAS alot of dust, and each one of those stoves had a tea pot on it for moisture. Never used the dryer, clothes hung up dried over night inside.

Coal was stored outside in a large bin (held 3 ton, if I recall) with a tarp over it. Getting wet isn't an issue with coal.

Getting a coal stove going can be tough, but a good kindling then split based fire will usually do the trick. Once up and running they were tended to 3 times a day max, no matter the weather (air draft & burn time could be adjusted by opening vents, etc.) It's a science, but not hard to learn Good idea to have a handy supply of wood for getting it going. We always had a few cords, during the fall & spring the coal would have been overkill with the temps, but the wood suited the time to get us through (stoves could burn both).

That said, I opted for wood, after careful consideration of coal again.

I have ALOT of trees on this acre +, and as the economy is in the can, I've opted to clear out the back and see if I can bring the horses home, so burning wood for me, is a win/win (people say I am alot like my mother

)

The dust was a HUGE turn off. I don't know if that's changed with the newer stoves. I did discover after I bought the house from my Mom, and we were using the stoves. that my daughter & I were always sick, coughing wheezing, etc. Turned out we were allergic to the dust (Who woulda thunk it? But having some other allergies any way, not a total suprise). Pulling up the carpets after I removed the stoves totally turned me off ( I now have no carpet, aside from some area rugs).

I vacuum every day, atleast."Dog Hair Tumbleweeds" tremble in fear of my vacuum cleaner . The floor under the carpet was covered in coal dust, as was the bottom of the carpet & the padding. Shop vacing that stuff up was a blast :snake:

It's good heat, very good heat, but it's dirty, IMHO. If I weren't allergic, I'd be posting a more ra-ra-siskumba answer, in favor of coal

 

[lcgillis]

Thanks everyone! Looks like I am going to stay with wood. I do have some allergies in the family and don't need any additional "dust" to make worse. Plus I am somewhat sentimental to the wood process I love cutting and splitting, if I could convince my wife and kids to stack I would be all set. Sounds like the cons could outweigh the pros, as I can buy wood for about 50-60 dollars a cord in tree length.

 

[Opportunist]

Wet coal doesn't go well with a stoker. It can rust the storage bin and possibly cause problems with the moving parts. I have a inside storage coal box which holds about 3 tons. I transfer the coal from the storage box into bags to dry out before use. I'm always sweeping up coal dust. If you're buying a new stove. Why not buy one that burns both coal and wood? Then you're covered either way. The coal doesn't really take up too much room compared to the big wood piles. Wood can also be dirty with the bark breaking off and dust falling off.

I like the idea that I can go get wood during a emergency. Coal would be a little harder to dig up.

 

[gibson]

We burned coal in the '80's when I was a kid. Had a big coal bin in the basement. It was dirty as hell, but boy did that coal burn hot. We had a Russo wood/coal combo. Personal preference, I'd rather burn wood.

 

[VTSR5]

The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. That fact alone makes this fuel interesting to me, though today I burn wood (and oil).

 

[JustWood]

Coal today is screened and washed or oiled before delivery and is not as dirty as it once was. The stories you hear from people who burned it many years ago about it being dirty are true but today it is cleaned. Bulk deliveries into your basement can be hosed down WHILE delivery is being made to help eliminate what little dust may occur.

I mix soft coal from the Kittanning vein with wood on very cold nights to get all night burns. If you do some research you will find that some soft coal has nearly the same BTU content as hard coal. It does have a higher ash and sulfer content though.

Coal has a bad rep that IMO it does not deserve. It is no more dirty than than all the dirt ,bark, and bugs you bring in with wood.

 

[paulski]

I have been researching this myself and have come to some (modestly thought out) conclusions:
Anthracite seems to actually burn cleaner than wood when burned correctly in many situations;
Anthracite burns hotter and longer;
Anthracite leaves roughly 9% behind in the form of ash and must be cleaned frequently;
Wood leaves less waste behind and burns better with appropriate bed of ash;
Wood can be burned in a coal stove but not the other way around in any quantity;
Anthracite doesn't leave creosote behind;
Anthracite is WAY cheaper than most other fuels and burns hotter per unit;
Anthracite must be stored appropriately, stacked wood looks nicer;
Wood can come in many burnable forms from many readily available sources;
No Lithuanians are harmed in the recovery of cord wood (My family is Lithuanian);
The USA has many times the amount of coal than any other country (Russia is #2 in quantity and has something on the order of 1/3 - 1/5 of the coal we do);
Stay away from Bituminous coal;
Coal stokers are available as automatic feed which is a nice feature;
Coal stokers don't need a chimney, just a vent;
Oil is bad. Oil people are bad. Heating with oil is bad.

I found this somewhat easily on Yahoo! and Wikipedia and some environmental websites. It seems helpful to have some of this info available for comparison if you are considering either wood or coal equally. IMO.
Harman makes some really nice stoves and I was seriously thinking about getting one. After all of this searching and thinking I instead decided on an Osburn 2200 wood stove. Coal isn't as easy to obtain as wood sometimes and wood doesn't cost too much.

 

[woodconvert]

GAHHH...had a longer post but lost it. Here goes again.

NEVER burned anthricite, not once. BUT, researched it for down the road. I may not be in shape to do the cutting/splitting/stacking for the 24/7 that I do now (two crushed lower disks in the ole' backside). Hell, I like the work now. I even posed almost the same question some time back....I don't understand why, unless cost prohibitive, that yall on the East Coast don't burn anthircite. To me, again, unless cost prohibitive, it seems like a no brainer...gobs of heat, longer burning, you can auger feed and hook to your thermostat or gravity feed if you are worried about losing electricity, not cutting/splitting/stacing, no worries about a wet drying season, clean burning, no creosote worries....to me it's a no brainer.

I'm very interested in hearing from more wood burners.

 

[wellbuilt home]

I live 30 mls from the-PA. coal mines and i could get the coal cheep ! I could haul 6 ton of coal at once but wood is free for me and most of the time i get payed to take it .I think coal would be better for a outside boiler for a large house 4000sf .I would build a small house to put the coal and the boiler in . But i have all the tools for wood burning and now i have a new wood stove coming.

 

[BJ64]

I used coal for ten years in our old house. The fire box had and old "stoker" attached to it and would hold about a full day's supply for a hard cold day.

The coal was what ever kind we have here in NE Oklahoma, (Craig County).

It was cheap heat. I could heat for a month, a 2300 square-foot old house with of a standard pick-up bed bed of it which was about 2700 to 3000 pounds and it cost $60 a load.

But that system was dirty and had some issues because the fire box was quite old. I liked it but my wife says never again.

 

[NEW HOPE ENGINEER]

I burn hard coal and wood in my potbelly stove and have no problems.

 

[drizler]

http://nepacrossroads.com/

Go there and ask around. I asked them about the stoves that burn both wood and coal. Their opinions were that most folks who had them weren't all that happy being that they were neither fish nor foul. Price of coal varies all over the place with shipping. I can tell you that if it isn't cheap unless there is some major dealer nearby, preferably industrial users around ect. There aren't many of any of these businesses around outside coal country anymore. Here around Northern NY you can expect to pay right around 300 bucks a ton, slightly more from the stove shops. The beauty of coal is that you can just leave it out in the weather with minimal handling.