No more wood burning... Gone with the newer cleaner fuel Coal.

[stanb999]

I've been burning wood for 8 years in two different houses. I liked the cost of wood(free) From my own wood lot. But I could never get it truly dry. Even after 2 years in the wood shed it would still sizzle. So I always used quite a lot. Probably 25% more than the actual btu requirement.

It will take some time to get used to this stove tho. The things I've found so far.

1. No touchie. Leave it alone the coal knows how to burn.
2. It needs a full load.
3. It is much more able to be regulated. I had it burn 1 load for 48 hours only touching it twice to shake it down. It cruised at 180F.
4. It won't burn a full stove to nothing. You have to add a bit every day to keep it going.

I can't wait to see how it does in winter. I'm expecting a one match stove. In that the fire will burn all winter till spring. Only servicing it twice a day and loading it once a day.

I got a hand fired harman mark II and nut coal. The back is forgetting about carrying wood already.

 

[crazy_dan]

If I had access to good coal (really any coal) around here that is what I would be burning.

 

[stanb999]

http://nepacrossroads.com/
coal site

I'm a member there as well.

 

[savageactor7]

If I didn't have available wood I'd be burning coal...that hard shiny coal is bullet proof to the rain/snow.

 

[LLigetfa]

Talk about your cleaner fuel, the wife keeps talking about converting our RSF to natural gas.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

 

[mikepinto65]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

+1 :exclaim:

 

[laynes69]

I've burned some coal. If I had to now it would be all anthracite. The soft ohio coal we have here is a stinky, sooty, dirty mess. My parents wouldn't burn it, untill I introduced them to anthracite. A couple of years ago it was around 200 a ton. I could have gotten ohio coal at that time for 90. Now im doing the right thing by upgrading to a EPA certified unit. Thats my way to burn cleaner no more coal for me.

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

Bagged anthracite here is $275/ton. I'm seriously considering it. I think I've settled on a Hitzer stove so that I can burn wood spring & fall as long as I can still work it up. I could easily have 8-10 years (or more) of fuel on site and purchased at 2009 prices with no degradation whatsoever. Bituminous is much cheaper ($90/ton) & mined within a few miles of my home, but anthracite burns so cleanly that I expect that's what I'll use. It seems a great way to lock in my heating costs for several years and still get to burn something.

 

[crazy_dan]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

It is a non issue for me
when I lived in MT I would burn the hell out of anthracite coal.
had a friend that worked for a mining company about 30 miles from my house and could get my pickup bed + a pickup bed trailer filled heaping for $5.
If I had a steady source of Cheap coal i would not have a wood stove.

 

[RIDGERUNNER30]

If coal is what will make you happy go for it ,but that stuff is so nasty to burn in your home, I live right in coal country and work in a coal mines for a living and have plenty of acess to high btu coal with a low ash content, I grew up burning coal at my parents house and every spring my mother would have to paint the living room where the stove was, coal is very sooty, you can't beat the heat and long burn times, but i will be the first to tell you most coal stoves i have been around don't hold up well to high btu coal you have to replaces the grates and often times the high intense heat wraps you stove slowly, but if i was going to burn coal i would get me a coal furance they are probably made of heavier steel and you can put them in a basement or a more suitable place other than your living room. another thing coal is going to get more expensive to buy, small coal companys are being pushed out by harder regulations set by msha or better yet the federal goverment, they want to control coal and bigger coal companies only sell coal on contract or to power plants , not a good investment in my opinion stay with wood guys the dark side is not what it's crack up to be

 

[Planeweird]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

It is a non issue for me
when I lived in MT I would burn the hell out of anthracite coal.
had a friend that worked for a mining company about 30 miles from my house and could get my pickup bed + a pickup bed trailer filled heaping for $5.
If I had a steady source of Cheap coal i would not have a wood stove.

Attitudes like that are why the planet is in such bad shape. But F*ck it, as long as it's convenient right?

 

[velvetfoot]

What the he;; do you know, genius?

 

[mikepinto65]

What the he;; do you know, genius?

???? Are you offended that someone here is speaking what they believe? Who/what was this intended for?

 

[velvetfoot]

"Attitudes like that are why the planet is in such bad shape. But F*ck it, as long as it’s convenient right?"
Political crap, that's what that is.
Polarizing comment, with a fu#k thrown in.

 

[Titus]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

Burning wood is no more or less carbon neutral than burning coal or oil. Any burning of wood releases carbon into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than it was sequestered. If you burn downed wood, you release carbon faster than natural decay would have. If you burn trees that were cut down, not only are you releasing carbon more quickly than the tree absorbed it, but you have also kept future growth of that tree from sequestering more carbon. Not to mention the carbon release from the fuels used in the cutting, processing, and transportation of the wood.

Just pick a mature tree and consider how many days it will take you to burn it. How does that stack up against the 40 years the tree spent absorbing carbon?

Oil and coal are merely old plant remains. New coal and oil deposits are being formed today. It is just a matter of timescale.

 

[Planeweird]

"Attitudes like that are why the planet is in such bad shape. But F*ck it, as long as it’s convenient right?"
Political crap, that's what that is.
Polarizing comment, with a fu#k thrown in.

Nothing political about it. Mine is an environmental issue. And the F*ck thrown in......well, I suppose I've just got an Irish tongue. I suppose it doesn't really matter though, as most people think more of their immediate situations and far less of any larger one. That's not always a bad thing, but it usually is.

 

[Planeweird]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

Burning wood is no more or less carbon neutral than burning coal or oil. Any burning of wood releases carbon into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than it was sequestered. If you burn downed wood, you release carbon faster than natural decay would have. If you burn trees that were cut down, not only are you releasing carbon more quickly than the tree absorbed it, but you have also kept future growth of that tree from sequestering more carbon. Not to mention the carbon release from the fuels used in the cutting, processing, and transportation of the wood.

Just pick a mature tree and consider how many days it will take you to burn it. How does that stack up against the 40 years the tree spent absorbing carbon?

Oil and coal are merely old plant remains. New coal and oil deposits are being formed today. It is just a matter of timescale.

Good points but in comparison to coal?
That harvested tree can be replaced with another one(or several for that matter) to continue it's carbon collection. Forests can be replanted, and yes, I'm aware that once old growth is gone, it's gone. But the best possible efforts can be put forth to minimize harvesting damage. And you can't replant anything on a mountain where the entire top and several sides have been stripped off of it and all of the mining processes have contaminated the soil and water for miles around. Wildlife suffers and fish are poisoned with amazing amounts of mercury. I'll also wager that the fuels used and pollution produced to mine, process, and transport coal far exceed those of a typical logging operation.

Cheers

 

[afblue]

Was it not an issue for you that wood is carbon neutral (with a
responsibly-managed woodlot), whereas coal is not only a
fossil fuel, it releases about twice as much carbon, per btu
of heat generated, than most other fossil fuels ?

Burning wood is no more or less carbon neutral than burning coal or oil. Any burning of wood releases carbon into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than it was sequestered. If you burn downed wood, you release carbon faster than natural decay would have. If you burn trees that were cut down, not only are you releasing carbon more quickly than the tree absorbed it, but you have also kept future growth of that tree from sequestering more carbon. Not to mention the carbon release from the fuels used in the cutting, processing, and transportation of the wood.

Just pick a mature tree and consider how many days it will take you to burn it. How does that stack up against the 40 years the tree spent absorbing carbon?

Oil and coal are merely old plant remains. New coal and oil deposits are being formed today. It is just a matter of timescale.

Yes they are old plant remains FROM 4 MILLION YEARS AGO! Not 40 or even 100 years ago that it took a tree to grow, But the mining and use of coal does not produce any sound values that make it green. Yes coal would be considered renewable if we are talking on a thousands of year scale. Yes you burn a tree it releases carbon faster than the tree absorbed when growing, but its the fact that a new tree is planted and it has the time to reabsorb the carbon, and grow.

 

[crazy_dan]

I believe I stated that I do not burn coal because I can not find a steady source of cheap coal, but that I had in the past and I loved it
I also DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, Just like I did not believe stuff in the 70's about OMG it is an Ice age we are all gonna die.
If you do a little looking it to it you will find every 30 or so years it flip flops from global cooling to global warming.
even the guy who first suggested global warming this time doesn't believe it anymore.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

and this is interesting too
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Look mom no cursing

 

[woodgeek]

I DO believe in human-driven global warming (of an amount which is still uncertain, but likely only neck and neck with natural variations at this time), but I DON'T have a problem with anyone heating their house with nice anthracite, esp in an EPA appliance.

You have to realize the numbers game. Which is the bigger problem--
1. a tiny proportion of americans burning C like this, for reasons like economy, they like it, their parents did it, to thumb their noses at the ecos by doing something that is perfectly legal, whatever.
2. the vast majority of americans wasting C-fired electricity like it was going out of style. Folks that drive their SUV to drop off a bag of newspapers at the recycle center, so they can get a warm fuzzy they are saving the earth.

The problem is really convenience--if you can flip a switch and burn a tank of oil or a ton of coal without thinking about it, you are not going to have a real awareness of your energy usage and where it comes from. If you are cutting, splitting and burning 8 tons of wood (or 3 tons of coal) in a season, you know where your energy comes from.

The OP was making a point that coal is a good solid fuel, but not for everyone. Too bad the thread will disappear into the ash can--sorry if I helped it along!

 

[Steamer]

YIKES

Now I feel like moving to a warmer climate.

 

[Bobcatter]

Ohhhhhh the memories of coal , growing up in the 1960's ... ... Good hot heat. We kids could toast our buns on the register once dad got the monster in the basement fired up. Of course, that means that the temp had dropped pretty low the night before, so we were freezing. (Little insulation in those days). Dad getting bituminous for $5 a truck load, but couldn't afford to get 4 or 5 loads for the winter, so lots of "stuck" time when he had to deliver in the snow. Oh yes, the snow, the BLACK snow! It would only take a few days to get the snow grayed over with coal soot and as the snow melted, the black intensified. By spring, things were pretty ugly. The dust got everywhere - the porch, the windows, lawn furniture, etc. Inside, we always were sweeping up the basement and dusting the rafters. We had "basement" shoes to wear when we fired up the stove in the winter. And the smell.... nothing remotely agreeable such as you will find with a wiff of aromatic hardwood smoke in the morning air.

Now you can get oiled coal to cut the dust and better furnaces that don't kick out so much soot. Plus, the anthracite is hotter and cleaner. (Our old furnace was not rated for anthracite - and dad probably couldn't have afforded it back then).

I'm sorry to see when discussions slide downhill on these forums. Nowadays, I burn wood, and am relying on it more each year. Yes, global warming is steering me away from the fossil fuels, but I don't think it is a big issue for the homeowner. I've seen the coal fired generating plants in Pennsylvania, with their mountains of coal, and that is what they burn in a month or so. Until we make drastic changes in our energy sources, what homeowners do (even considered as a large group) is just a drop in the bucket compared to the world wide use. The "machine" of transporting and using fossil fuels is so large in our world it is beyond our comprehensions. So relax, keep it all in prospective, and be glad you can supply heat for your family at a reasonable cost. When prices (or taxes) skyrocket the cost of fossil fuel, you can still burn wood in a coal furnace to heat your family. Is there really anything else for the average (just getting by) guy or gal to worry about??

 

[flash49]

Well said Bobcatter.

 

[savageactor7]

Everyone should bear in mind that sooner or later regulators will take a second look at wood burners too. That's what they do...regulate! Has there ever in all of recorded history been a government regulatory agency that declared its job done and unnecessary. No.

Coal is almost an unlimited resource in this country and if the great thinkers in the energy industry figure out a 'green' coal burn and refining cycle it could mean our energy independence. This independence would bring the almost immediate halt of hundreds of billions of dollars going overseas yearly.

...I'm sure there's plenty of stimulus money targeted at this sleeping giant of jobs.