# Anyone still burn coal?



## rwh63 (Aug 27, 2021)

have the opportunity to pick up a Vermont Castings Resolute, currently set up for wood, but comes with the coal kit.  i don't hear much about coal, and am wondering if it is competitive with wood in any ways.


----------



## bholler (Aug 27, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> have the opportunity to pick up a Vermont Castings Resolute, currently set up for wood, but comes with the coal kit.  i don't hear much about coal, and am wondering if it is competitive with wood in any ways.


It is better in some ways worse in others.  First thing to find out is how is coal availability in your area


----------



## BIGChrisNH (Aug 27, 2021)

When I bought my house back in 09, there was a coal/wood combo stove from Russo in the basement. I burned some coal in it, and what I liked about it was that once you got the coal fire going, it lasted a long time and I liked the heat from it. I didn't find it to be much messier than wood either. But, coal is not a popular fuel where I am, and I have been able to get most of my wood for free, either from my own property or through other means, so it didn't make sense. If coal is cheap and plentiful where you are, it is definitely a viable way to heat.


----------



## coal and wood man (Aug 27, 2021)

I have been using a Vigilant II for the last 18 years. Burn both wood and coal in it, wood when it is not too cold and coal when it gets cold. Does not burn real long with wood since the grates let the coals fall through too easily but that is not the design. It is my second coal stove the first was a Waterford. The coal stove puts out a lot of heat and has good burn times especially using anthracite. That is an advantage of being close to coal county in PA. The biggestand hopefully I can get another 18 years out of it. isue I see now is spare parts since the stove is discontinued. I keep a stock of parts on hand: fireback, grates, shaker rod, glass


----------



## stoveliker (Aug 27, 2021)

I'd get it, and get some coal. At the very least it gives you a back-up for if you are in a bind with wood (too wet, not enough in a cold winter etc).


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 27, 2021)

thx for the replies.  does coal burn lower and more steady than wood?  i've read that it "lasts longer", esp. good for overnights.  is waste disposal a challenge?  does it burn clean out the chimney, or dirty?  the loading seems a little like a pellet stove set up; load it and just keep topping it up.


----------



## stoveliker (Aug 27, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> thx for the replies.  does coal burn lower and more steady than wood?  i've read that it "lasts longer", esp. good for overnights.  is waste disposal a challenge?  does it burn clean out the chimney, or dirty?  the loading seems a little like a pellet stove set up; load it and just keep topping it up.



From my (watching) experience, it does not necessarily burn lower than wood. The heat output is mostly determined by the size of the fire. (Though I don't know how this works with the newfangled hopper systems with pea sized coal....)

Wast disposal was never an issue as a good burning coal fire does not create a lot of ash. (We burned tomato sized coal,. manually fed in batches.)

It was very clean for us in the chimney.


----------



## bholler (Aug 27, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> thx for the replies.  does coal burn lower and more steady than wood?  i've read that it "lasts longer", esp. good for overnights.  is waste disposal a challenge?  does it burn clean out the chimney, or dirty?  the loading seems a little like a pellet stove set up; load it and just keep topping it up.


It will last longer yes.   If setup properly it will burn much lower and longer than wood.

Waste disposable can be a challenge depending upon your area and the volume you burn.

Coal does not make creosote at all so actual chimney fires are not an issue.  But it can put allot of fly ash in the chimney that will need cleaned.   The ash is also extremely corrosive if it gets any moisture.   It does put out allot more chemicals into the atmosphere as well


----------



## bholler (Aug 27, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> From my (watching) experience, it does not necessarily burn lower than wood. The heat output is mostly determined by the size of the fire. (Though I don't know how this works with the newfangled hopper systems with pea sized coal....)
> 
> Wast disposal was never an issue as a good burning coal fire does not create a lot of ash. (We burned tomato sized coal,. manually fed in batches.)
> 
> It was very clean for us in the chimney.


It leaves allot of ash. When I was burning coal I easily had 10 gallons a week.   Wood might be 5 gals a month


----------



## stoveliker (Aug 27, 2021)

bholler said:


> It leaves allot of ash.  The volume is only about cut in half normally after burning.  The weight is cut greatly though.



 I wonder if that depends on the type of coal? We burned through a boatload of coal as a family in Europe in the 80s and never had much ash.


----------



## bholler (Aug 27, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> I wonder if that depends on the type of coal? We burned through a boatload of coal as a family in Europe in the 80s and never had much ash.


Absolutely.  Softer coals will burn down more than anthracite.


----------



## stoveliker (Aug 27, 2021)

Ok. Good to have learned that.
I always liked the coal fire. A little mountain of heat in there. Lasted long, deep heat.

Having a 10 cubic foot stash as backup for an otherwise wood-use (but dual capability)  stove is a good feeling imo.


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 27, 2021)

i don't consider this stove to be dual fuel, unlike early vigilantes that could burn either as-is (i believe).  you do have to uninstall the internal wood stove pieces and instill the entire coal kit.  not sure how long that takes.


----------



## bholler (Aug 27, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> i don't consider this stove to be dual fuel, unlike early vigilantes that could burn either as-is (i believe).  you do have to uninstall the internal wood stove pieces and instill the entire coal kit.  not sure how long that takes.
> 
> View attachment 281361
> View attachment 281362


Yeah they really are just coal stoves.  Yeah you can burn some wood but not well at all


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 29, 2021)

picked up the stove today from the original owner (had purchased it directly from the factory in Vermont in 1980).  stove looks fabulous.  excellent owner.  has set screw side warmers, mitten racks, screen, wood and coal kits.  paint is excellent.


----------



## clancey (Aug 30, 2021)

I wish that they could bring it back and somehow for home use have some gadgets that clean up the burning of it--filters or something--for it seems really nice to burn it and I did not know that the size of those nuggets changed and I would like them bigger as well...Found one in my old house from 1926 and should have kept it--lol Kidding here...But coal to me seems on the tube so much easier to handle and the heat is long lasting--wish they could upgrade it and make it good..old mrs clancey


----------



## bholler (Aug 30, 2021)

clancey said:


> I wish that they could bring it back and somehow for home use have some gadgets that clean up the burning of it--filters or something--for it seems really nice to burn it and I did not know that the size of those nuggets changed and I would like them bigger as well...Found one in my old house from 1926 and should have kept it--lol Kidding here...But coal to me seems on the tube so much easier to handle and the heat is long lasting--wish they could upgrade it and make it good..old mrs clancey


The size varies depending upon the type of stove you use.   The stokers that auto feed from a hopper use rice coal which is pretty small.  Hand fired stoves use pea or nut coal usually some still use stove coal which is pretty big.

Any filters etc are going to be really expensive and take allot of maintenance.  I just don't see it being practical for residential use


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 30, 2021)

my “new” resolute coal stove!  It was used to burn coal throughout its life, so it is really clean inside (no creosote) and no metal damage.


----------



## bholler (Aug 30, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> my “new” resolute coal stove!  It was used to burn coal throughout its life, so it is really clean inside (no creosote) and no metal damage.
> 
> View attachment 281446
> View attachment 281447


Well of course there won't be any creosote in it if it was only used for coal lol.  By the look of those internal parts it was very well maintained.  And I don't think it was used very hard.   What chimney will this be hooked to?


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 30, 2021)

the owner used it significantly over the 40 years of ownership.  generally speaking, i could tell he is a "professional amateur", so not surprising the stove is in exceptional condition.  he said the coal kit wasn't immediately available, so the stove burned wood the first year.  then only coal since until a few years ago.  

and yes, no creosote with coal.  seen some really bad old stoves caked in the stuff.  making me rethink coal, at least for these older stoves (and yes, i know about dry wood).

PO liked the coal also because it would still be going in the morning, unlike many wood stoves that need to start all over every AM.


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 30, 2021)

40 lb bags off anthracite USA coal at tractor supply for $6.50.  is this good value?  no idea how to compare coal cost/heat output to hardwood.


----------



## moresnow (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> 40 lb bags off anthracite USA coal at tractor supply for $6.50.  is this good value?  no idea how to compare coal cost/heat output to hardwood.


I have no idea on current coal price. For $6.50 a 40lb bag I would certainly hope it would go a looong time! Did you ask the former owner what to expect for burn times/operational procedure etc? Such a moving target it's hard to guess. Sounds like it has the potential for getting rather expensive. Maybe? Curious.
You will likely get hands on guidance from the same stove operators at coalpail.com.  Best of luck. Let us know how it pans out.


----------



## bholler (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> 40 lb bags off anthracite USA coal at tractor supply for $6.50.  is this good value?  no idea how to compare coal cost/heat output to hardwood.


325/ton is rediculously high for coal here.  You can have a ton delivered for $250 or so.  If you go pick it up at a cracker  $200 or less


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 31, 2021)

bholler said:


> 325/ton is rediculously high for coal here.  You can have a ton delivered for $250 or so.  If you go pick it up at a cracker  $200 or less


That was just a bag price.  No idea what a ton would be.  I read one ton equals 2-3 cords of heat output.


----------



## bholler (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> That was just a bag price.  No idea what a ton would be.  I read one ton equals 2-3 cords of heat output.


Can you get bulk delivery in your area?


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 31, 2021)

bholler said:


> Can you get bulk delivery in your area?


Haven’t looked into it yet.  I will call local stove shops at some point.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> That was just a bag price.  No idea what a ton would be.  I read one ton equals 2-3 cords of heat output.


Are you sure about that? Maybe equal to 2-3 cords of poplar. A ton of anthracite coal is about 24,000,000 btu, about the same as a cord of oak (which does weigh more). Coal would only be worth it if you can't buy or physically deal with cord wood, or can get it for $200/ton. Might as well do wood pellets which don't have toxic ash or sulfuric flue emissions and cost the same.

Edit: I do get the appeal of not dealing with pellet stove electronics, I will concede that.


----------



## rwh63 (Aug 31, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Are you sure about that? Maybe equal to 2-3 cords of poplar. A ton of anthracite coal is about 24,000,000 btu, about the same as a cord of oak (which does weigh more). Coal would only be worth it if you can't buy or physically deal with cord wood, or can get it for $200/ton. Might as well do wood pellets which don't have toxic ash or sulfuric flue emissions and cost the same.
> 
> Edit: I do get the appeal of not dealing with pellet stove electronics, I will concede that.


yeah, that is a general comparison.  i ran across it doing a quick search.  maybe there is a chart comparing different coal types with wood types.


----------



## bholler (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> yeah, that is a general comparison.  i ran across it doing a quick search.  maybe there is a chart comparing different coal types with wood types.


The only coal you want to burn is anthracite.  But even anthracite varies quite a bit.  Some will make allot more fly ash some has a higher sulfur content etc.   I honestly can't believe you bought a coal stove without having an affordable coal supply lines up.


----------



## bholler (Aug 31, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> yeah, that is a general comparison.  i ran across it doing a quick search.  maybe there is a chart comparing different coal types with wood types.


Again what chimney will this be hooked to?


----------



## rwh63 (Sep 1, 2021)

bholler said:


> The only coal you want to burn is anthracite.  But even anthracite varies quite a bit.  Some will make allot more fly ash some has a higher sulfur content etc.   I honestly can't believe you bought a coal stove without having an affordable coal supply lines up.


perhaps you misunderstand, the stove is set up for wood but has the coal kit as well.


----------



## rwh63 (Sep 1, 2021)

bholler said:


> Again what chimney will this be hooked to?


it is not determined yet.  the stove was too nice to pass up.


----------



## bholler (Sep 1, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> it is not determined yet.  the stove was too nice to pass up.


Ok is you intend on using it for coal you will need either a clay liner or 316 ti or 316 l.  L is a little better for coal but not common.


----------



## rwh63 (Sep 1, 2021)

bholler said:


> Ok is you intend on using it for coal you will need either a clay liner or 316 ti or 316 l.  L is a little better for coal but not common.


How about cast in place,


----------



## bholler (Sep 1, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> How about cast in place,


I don't like that for anything.  I have yet to work on one that wasn't constantly shedding material off the inside


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 8, 2021)

TSC nut coal for $6.50 a bag is high. They do have sales sometimes for $5 per bag.

Many complained about too many fines in each bag, or the coal being dirty or inconsistent in size. I can vouch for that to be true. However, what I bought was high volatile coal...lots of blue flames from the gases in the coal. It burned well, fine ash, and burned longer with more heat than both my “other” brands of coal that Inused that year. Last year I could not find it cheap so did not burn any.

Lehigh coal or Blashak coal are what I buy by the ton here. These are both premium coal from reputable companies. Both burn well and are relatively clean...very little fines in each bag. Both sell in bulk as well.

If you locate some TSC bagged nut coal here is what I would suggest you do.  Buy 4-6 bags to try to get a feel for how it burns. Take note of how many bags or pallets your TSC store has. Buy these bags before a sale happens and burn them before a sale happens. This way, you know what to expect. Try to buy from the same pallet or buy a pallet or two from the same truck load. This will give a better chance of getting uniform coal in size and burn quality. 


It’s a lot easier to just purchase bulk from a reputable company. I really like Blashak pea and nut size coal. 

I also like the smell of burning oak and hickory as well.

I actually got much longer blue flames and more heat from the TSC coal I bought that year. However, that doesn’t mean I’ll get the same results next time I buy it. So I will buy a few bags and if I decide to buy more I’ll make sure the stores supply came from the same shipment that year.


----------



## bholler (Sep 9, 2021)

Hoytman said:


> TSC nut coal for $6.50 a bag is high. They do have sales sometimes for $5 per bag.
> 
> Many complained about too many fines in each bag, or the coal being dirty or inconsistent in size. I can vouch for that to be true. However, what I bought was high volatile coal...lots of blue flames from the gases in the coal. It burned well, fine ash, and burned longer with more heat than both my “other” brands of coal that Inused that year. Last year I could not find it cheap so did not burn any.
> 
> ...


Very good post


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 9, 2021)

Coal PRICE Today | Coal Spot Price Chart | Live Price of Coal per Ounce | Markets Insider
					

Coal Price: Get all information on the Price of Coal including News, Charts and Realtime Quotes.




					markets.businessinsider.com
				




With the last year of coal prices, I would not even bother. Pellets are a better deal at those prices.


----------



## bholler (Sep 9, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Coal PRICE Today | Coal Spot Price Chart | Live Price of Coal per Ounce | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> Coal Price: Get all information on the Price of Coal including News, Charts and Realtime Quotes.
> ...


Coal is still way cheaper than pellets here per ton and there are more BTUs per ton with coal


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 9, 2021)

bholler said:


> Coal is still way cheaper than pellets here per ton and there are more BTUs per ton with coal


At $160/ton market price you aren't buying sized anthracite for less than $200/ton for heating use. Retail price for a skid of pellets in Maine right now is in the high $200 low $300 range and a pallet of bagged coal (I know, not as cheap but more comparable to bagged pellets on a skid) is $324. I can't see coal really being any better of a fuel with prices so high, especially compared to wood pellets. Lumber is creeping down and I think environmental regulations are going to keep coal prices high. I'm also considering that high coal prices are part of the driver for high steel prices.


----------



## bholler (Sep 9, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> At $160/ton market price you aren't buying sized anthracite for less than $200/ton for heating use. Retail price for a skid of pellets in Maine right now is in the high $200 low $300 range and a pallet of bagged coal (I know, not as cheap but more comparable to bagged pellets on a skid) is $324. I can't see coal really being any better of a fuel with prices so high, especially compared to wood pellets. Lumber is creeping down and I think environmental regulations are going to keep coal prices high. I'm also considering that high coal prices are part of the driver for high steel prices.


You can still have bulk coal delivered here for 220 or so and if you go to the mines and pick it up it's still under 200


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 9, 2021)

Good nut coal has nearly double the btu’s of even the best hardwood pellets. So, that means near two pallets of pellets for every one pallet of bagged coal...which translates to much more work carrying bags not to mention needing extra space that is dry. Wet pellets are just that. Wet coal drys out by the stove and burns just fine. Everyone has their own specific needs and concerns to consider.

Buying coal in bulk in a pick-up truck, or even by the dump truck load still isn’t as cheap as buying by the tractor trailer load. I have a friend in Elkhart, Indiana that buys it that way...24 ton at a time. Each load like that lasts him about 12 to 13 years total and only costs him a few thousand dollars each time. He just remodeled his home with all new wall and ceiling insulation. Now he needs an even smaller coal stove and his giant stash of coal will last him literally until he’s old enough he won’t want to carry hods or coal. That is what he is saying. He’s also held off on putting in a new furnace because he first wants to see his coal use reduction before he commits to a furnace unit. He will obviously put the furnace in for his wife in case he dies, but meanwhile he’ll be saving more money now with much better insulation.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 9, 2021)

Did you guys look at the link? Coal as a commodity is 200% more expensive than it was when you last bought coal. You are not getting it for $200/ton anymore, there would be no profit for the people selling the coal.


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 9, 2021)

If had trees I was willing to cut wood burning might be different for me. I used to cut a lot of wood with my dad. My saws are old, but they run well...albeit lots of vibration and no kick back safety like newer saws. I’d need a 4x4 and a wood splitter, new saws and safety equipment...all of which we used to have. Only thing I kept was the old saws. Right now those are additional expenses making buying wood an easier decision, money saved, time spent doing other things, and lots less work. Quite honestly it just takes a little looking for the right person with the right wood and it just makes better sense for me to buy it. Then there’s the 2-3 years drying time to consider as well for properly dried wood in this damp valley. No one has ever delivered me wood that is properly seasoned. They all say it is seasoned when it isn’t. When we cut wood and delivered years ago our storage pile was massive...big enough that we delivered 2 year seasoned wood to people back them. Good luck with that kind of service today.

All the thinking and figuring, planning to buy more equipment, find places to cut wood, handle it 6 times before it gets to the stove...all makes burning coal look so much better and easier. My only issue with coal is the ash...it’s a pain in the ash. It’s a big enough pain that makes that BK stove look all that much better with its deep fire box.


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 9, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Did you guys look at the link? Coal as a commodity is 200% more expensive than it was when you last bought coal. You are not getting it for $200/ton anymore, there would be no profit for the people selling the coal.


Doesn’t matter to me. It’s why I already have a stash of coal...it’s why I bought a duel fuel stove...and it’s why I have had wood seasoning on the 3 year plan...been two years now. It’s why my fuel oil tank it full, and why I have my propane tank full, and why I have two big electric heaters, and two big kerosene heaters. Come heck or high water I am ready for whatever mother mature and the Biden administration can throw at me.

Everyone else is on their own...and I don’t care. My plan from the start was to be able to weather any spikes in fuel costs...which ever fuel that rises...then I move to the cheapest...whatever that is at the time. I’m not locking myself into anything.

If this duel fuel stove is burning too much wood. Out it goes and I’m comes a Lopi Liberty in its place...just off the new EPA regulations by .1 tenth of a gram.

Nope...I’m Golden...just as I have planned. Only thing else I need to do is add more insulation...and what I have isn’t all that bad.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 9, 2021)

I don't even like wood pellets, but the coal prices make pellets sensible if you can't do wood. Sure, less BTU and a bit more cost than coal, but no toxic dust, ash, or flue gases. I'm not talking about stockpiles of heating fuel, but the topic of the post, which is about burning coal today at today's prices.


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 9, 2021)

Even at $300 a ton it is still cheaper than buying wood in my particular stove. If I need to burn wood I’ll use my Lopi and I’ll burn even less wood. 

That said, getting ready to buy two more tons of nut coal from Hitzer...here in eastern Indiana. I even drive to get it.


----------



## bholler (Sep 9, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Did you guys look at the link? Coal as a commodity is 200% more expensive than it was when you last bought coal. You are not getting it for $200/ton anymore, there would be no profit for the people selling the coal.


When you are buying from the people who are digging it out of the ground or one step away those people are still making money.   You can buy commodity goods locally below commodity pricing pretty often.

I still don't like burning coal myself but if you are in the right area it can still be a very cheap heat source.  Which is why I asked early on about the availability in their area.


----------



## Hoytman (Sep 9, 2021)

Lots of folks around here seem to have a hard time buying quality hardwood pellets. So much so my cousin has considered becoming a bulk dealer.


----------



## vt-new-fp (Oct 14, 2021)

bholler said:


> It will last longer yes.   If setup properly it will burn much lower and longer than wood.
> 
> Waste disposable can be a challenge depending upon your area and the volume you burn.
> 
> Coal does not make creosote at all so actual chimney fires are not an issue.  But it can put allot of fly ash in the chimney that will need cleaned.   The ash is also extremely corrosive if it gets any moisture.   It does put out allot more chemicals into the atmosphere as well


Hi -- I'm interested in what you say here about the creosote and corrosion. I got a vintage Tirolia stove (kitchen/heat/water) that is coal burning. Am wanting to swap out a propane heater (since propane is getting so $$$$$) that is vented into a clay-lined flue. Currently, the propane unit is the only thing in this flue, however, previously an oil furnace, propane water heater, and very old wood stove were all in this same flue.  Can I hoook up the coal stove without putting in a stainless liner?


----------



## bholler (Oct 14, 2021)

vt-new-fp said:


> Hi -- I'm interested in what you say here about the creosote and corrosion. I got a vintage Tirolia stove (kitchen/heat/water) that is coal burning. Am wanting to swap out a propane heater (since propane is getting so $$$$$) that is vented into a clay-lined flue. Currently, the propane unit is the only thing in this flue, however, previously an oil furnace, propane water heater, and very old wood stove were all in this same flue.  Can I hoook up the coal stove without putting in a stainless liner?


If the clay is is good shape and the chimney was built correctly yes.  Clay is still the best liner for coal


----------



## coaly (Oct 14, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> 40 lb bags off anthracite USA coal at tractor supply for $6.50.  is this good value?  no idea how to compare coal cost/heat output to hardwood.


I have a wood stove that has heated my home and a coal stove that has heated my home different years.
I normally use between 2 and 2 1/2 tons of Chestnut a year. I started when coal was 100 a ton, last year it was 220 picked up in bulk. Never had it delivered for an extra charge or bagged for the extra charge.
If I had to buy wood at 160 a cord now, I would need to buy more than twice that. So coal is cheaper by about 1/2. The big difference is the amount of work involved. This is heating just under 2000 sf. in Northeastern PA. Coal is abundant here.

The main advantage is one match lights the fire started in November. The heat stays more constant depending on how often you can shake it. Less hot/cold cycles with coal. I had a stoked stove, (that means you shovel coal directly onto fire) when I started and changed to a hopper fed Hitzer. One coal hod poured in daily (unless it’s extremely cold when it could use up to 2) and shake at least twice, and empty ash is the only work involved keeping it going. 

So years when I don’t take time to have enough wood ready (I have enough land to cut standing dead only) I burn coal. The main difference is much less work involved with coal.

You will have more than twice the ash using anthracite. Remove ash pan daily. This is important to keep good air flow under grates. Air coming up through grates cools them. Ash build up below them is the stove killer. It will warp and melt grates.

You have no creosote, but the emissions burning coal are far worse. The residue in pipes and chimney from fly ash become very corrosive  when warm air during summer creates moisture condensing in pipe. I remove my connector pipe in spring, brush it and rinse well with water until it runs clean. Dry the pipe and store in basement with dehumidifier or I need to replace pipe every other year. Barometric dampers are expensive, so keeping it clean is necessary if you don’t want to replace it every few years. (You absolutely need a barometric damper with coal to burn steady and efficient) If I don’t clean my stainless chimney cap it also rots away within a few years. So the cleaning and maintenance is important. If you don’t clean a metal chimney in the spring it will rot the inner liner out quickly.

Using a bin with bulk coal is not only cheaper than bags, it gives you an assortment to use as the temperatures fluctuate during winter. When it warms up, you want to use the fines around bottom and edges, not larger pieces. This will burn longer with less heat output. The colder it gets, the larger the pieces you want in stove. This is due to the oxygen between each piece. You will get the same btu out of each pound of coal, but the larger the coal the faster it burns due to more oxygen going through it. So finer pieces slows it down putting out less heat over the same amount of time. Like wood, you will learn other tricks burning coal with time.

One other disadvantage is airborne ash when removing ash. This is why coal has the reputation of being dirty inside.  You need to shake lightly in the morning to get a good draft going and kick up the fire BEFORE removing ash pan. As long as the fire is burning well, the air is rushing into stove and up stack. This prevents the airborne ash when removing pan from getting into house using chimney as a vacuum keeping it much cleaner inside your home. The fine dust will get everywhere until you master this.


----------



## coaly (Oct 14, 2021)

vt-new-fp said:


> Hi -- I'm interested in what you say here about the creosote and corrosion. I got a vintage Tirolia stove (kitchen/heat/water) that is coal burning. Am wanting to swap out a propane heater (since propane is getting so $$$$$) that is vented into a clay-lined flue. Currently, the propane unit is the only thing in this flue, however, previously an oil furnace, propane water heater, and very old wood stove were all in this same flue.  Can I hoook up the coal stove without putting in a stainless liner?


Yes, clay is better than a liner, but there is also a learning curve with coal.

 Gas is easiest, wood is work, and coal takes time to learn how to burn it the cleanest (keeping a blue flame above coal bed to burn off coal gas), the size of coal and air adjustment for proper heat output, and ash removal preventing airborne ash in the home.
I would use stainless inside for connector pipe knowing how corrosive it is to black pipe after learning I had to remove the connector pipe yearly to clean it preventing its constant replacement.


----------



## rwh63 (Oct 14, 2021)

coaly said:


> I have a wood stove that has heated my home and a coal stove that has heated my home different years.
> I normally use between 2 and 2 1/2 tons of Chestnut a year. I started when coal was 100 a ton, last year it was 220 picked up in bulk. Never had it delivered for an extra charge or bagged for the extra charge.
> If I had to buy wood at 160 a cord now, I would need to buy more than twice that. So coal is cheaper by about 1/2. The big difference is the amount of work involved. This is heating just under 2000 sf. in Northeastern PA. Coal is abundant here.
> 
> ...


thx for taking the time to contribute that write-up.


----------



## rwh63 (Oct 14, 2021)

coaly said:


> Yes, clay is better than a liner, but there is also a learning curve with coal.
> 
> Gas is easiest, wood is work, and coal takes time to learn how to burn it the cleanest (keeping a blue flame above coal bed to burn off coal gas), the size of coal and air adjustment for proper heat output, and ash removal preventing airborne ash in the home.
> I would use stainless inside for connector pipe knowing how corrosive it is to black pipe after learning I had to remove the connector pipe yearly to clean it preventing its constant replacement.


in my area, propane is about $3.40/gal using their tank (.80 cheaper if i had my own tank), firewood sabot +/-$300/cord for mainly oak delivered.  having a tight house (and there are many old ones that aren't or can't realistically be made so) is a best energy cost savings method.


----------



## coaly (Oct 14, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> in my area, propane is about $3.40/gal using their tank (.80 cheaper if i had my own tank), firewood sabot +/-$300/cord for mainly oak delivered.  having a tight house (and there are many old ones that aren't or can't realistically be made so) is a best energy cost savings method.


I was in the propane business for 20 years and heated with coal. If I didn’t have the need to get rid of so much wood, I would burn coal every year. Coal follows the price of diesel. As oil raises, so does coal. It takes diesel for generators, venting, hauling.

Years ago coal supported itself. It was burned in boilers for generating steam that ran a dyno for electric generation, steam engines for winches, and steam engine delivery by rail. I have receipts for 3.50 a ton I should dig out and post from my parents. That even came with a shovel when you were a good customer. I have a shovel from Peoples Coal Co. (still in business) with 3 numbers for their phone number on it!

Coal trains from Scranton PA would come through our town and stop for water. The trains were 100 cars long averaging 100 tons per car. Town people would run with their shovels to the middle of the train that couldn’t be seen by the engine crew or caboose and shovel off the cars onto the ground while it was loading water. They came back with wheelbarrows to shovel it up to take home after the train pulled out. 3.50 was a lot back then.

Homes had no insulation and many stoves. Each chimney served a parlor stove, dining room, and up stairs bedroom. 10 tons a year was normal usage for a two story home. (2 tons + is the norm now with insulation, energy efficient windows and air tight stoves) That cooked as well on a kitchen stove. Double homes had 2 kitchen stoves into the same chimney with a door next to the stove adjoining the two residences. The first one up in the morning would take care of the others stove. People also left their front door unlocked so travelers could stop to warm up and were expected to tend to their parlor stove before leaving. Coal was a way of life and you can’t imagine the smell in towns. Monday was wash day when the railroad had to run a clean stack with no smoke or cinders while everyone had laundry out drying. Sunday was stove day to let the kitchen stove cool enough to clean and stove black the outside, then oil the top.


----------



## clancey (Oct 14, 2021)

So different that life was and so fascinating too--coal has a long long history and I find your story enticing and it making me want to do some research on those days--what strong people they were in those days---when they gave their word with a handshake they kept it--being honorable people. I grew up in the city Philadelphia but had a few glimpses of how life was back then and to tell you the truth I respect coal and like it just wishing that they could really find a way to make it clean burning. Even the clean burning coal--make it cleaner....and use the by products as well...Thanks..clancey


----------



## bholler (Oct 14, 2021)

clancey said:


> So different that life was and so fascinating too--coal has a long long history and I find your story enticing and it making me want to do some research on those days--what strong people they were in those days---when they gave their word with a handshake they kept it--being honorable people. I grew up in the city Philadelphia but had a few glimpses of how life was back then and to tell you the truth I respect coal and like it just wishing that they could really find a way to make it clean burning. Even the clean burning coal--make it cleaner....and use the by products as well...Thanks..clancey


There were just as many dishonest crooks back then.  People just weren't bombarded with it by the 24 hr news cycle.  

When talking about coal you also can't ignore the effects and dangers of mining it.  Look at towns like shamokin Mt Carmel etc in Pa.  Look at lots of areas in WV.  Then you have Centralia.   Coal was very useful for a long time but it has some major down sides.

That being said I don't have any issue with people using it for heat or the people mining it etc.  But in general it is dying out and it's time to move on


----------



## clancey (Oct 14, 2021)

Yea I understand but it helped bring our wonderful nation to where it is today...It has a vivid history of corruption as well as other places but  underneath all that it saved many lives and made it possible for our future--same as wonderful wood...Those days were rough and yes there were lying crooks just like today and what a dirty job is was with the mining but those people were different and strong and you see it in your faces if you ignore the poverty of it all in places. Its a lost culture that will never be back and I will have fun checking it out further and I am looking for the humorous things as well...Fun to read up on different things...I respect coal for it is a backdrop that could very well in the future be a sort of a emergency supply that could save peoples lives...Talk about a way to get it to people ---train loads and let them shovel it off in a emergency situation just like in the old days "if they had too"....just thinking of the old and how they made it years ago--clancey


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 14, 2021)

I don't know how many lives were saved because of coal, but that has to be offset against the 7500 (to 52000!) lives ending early because of coal every year, in the US alone.








						The Other Reason to Shift away from Coal: Air Pollution That Kills Thousands Every Year
					

Shifting coal-fired power plants in the U.S. to natural gas would have tremendous positive effects on human health in America




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## bholler (Oct 14, 2021)

clancey said:


> Yea I understand but it helped bring our wonderful nation to where it is today...It has a vivid history of corruption as well as other places but  underneath all that it saved many lives and made it possible for our future--same as wonderful wood...Those days were rough and yes there were lying crooks just like today and what a dirty job is was with the mining but those people were different and strong and you see it in your faces if you ignore the poverty of it all in places. Its a lost culture that will never be back and I will have fun checking it out further and I am looking for the humorous things as well...Fun to read up on different things...I respect coal for it is a backdrop that could very well in the future be a sort of a emergency supply that could save peoples lives...Talk about a way to get it to people ---train loads and let them shovel it off in a emergency situation just like in the old days "if they had too"....just thinking of the old and how they made it years ago--clancey


I can agree with allot of what you said there.  But I am not really following how coal saved lives.  It absolutely fueled the industrial revolution and allowed our country and world to become what it is now.

I am also not just talking about poverty in those areas (which yes there is allot of).  I am talking about very very serious environmental issues caused by mining coal.  Many creeks are still completely dead and run bright orange.  They are getting cleaned up but still have a way to go.  And then there is Centralia which has had veins of coal burning under it since 1962.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 14, 2021)

The industrial revolution cost a lot, but saved a lot of lives too as it facilitated research, medical knowledge gained, better protection against weather etc. How do we know this? The life expectancy has risen dramatically since the (coal fueled) industrial revolution.

However, all that knowledge now allows us to do better, and hopefully do away with the human cost of many things, including coal.


----------



## bholler (Oct 14, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> The industrial revolution cost a lot, but saved a lot of lives too as it facilitated research, medical knowledge gained, better protection against weather etc. How do we know this? The life expectancy has risen dramatically since the (coal fueled) industrial revolution.
> 
> However, all that knowledge now allows us to do better, and hopefully do away with the human cost of many things, including coal.


Well said


----------



## ChillyB (Oct 16, 2021)

The house I moved into has a coal stove.  I dont (yet) have a bunch of seasoned wood.  My alternatives are heat pump (yeah, NO), kerosun heater, and a Little Buddy propane heater.  I guess I'll be learning to burn coal once the chimney is inspected.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 25, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> thx for the replies.  does coal burn lower and more steady than wood?  i've read that it "lasts longer", esp. good for overnights.  is waste disposal a challenge?  does it burn clean out the chimney, or dirty?  the loading seems a little like a pellet stove set up; load it and just keep topping it up.



It will certainly last much longer than wood.  When loading you completely fill the unit, this is about 3 times the energy density for same volume of wood (this also applies to storage). Adjust the heat output with the air. What you set the air on will determine how fast the coal is consumed and the maount of heat produced. Most people with hand fired stoves use them as "supplementary" heat and will get on a schedule of loading in the morning and evening. 

How much total heat really depends, the sf250 for example is safely operated up to 120K BTU. Most if not all will exceed the max but you don;t want to do that. If for example you left the ash door open after loading you can easily turn many stoves cherry red. I mnetion this because a lot of people will open the ash door after loading to accelerate initial lighting of fresh load. Give yourself a reminder to close it if you do this. 

A clay lined chimney will last indefinitely with coal. There is just a small amount of fine grey fly ash, most of which will settle in horizontal connector pipe runs and the bottom of the chimney. Two imporatant things to be aware of if you the chimney is utilized for wood. The coal will dry out the creosote and it drop down in big chunks potentially blocking the flue. The other "gotcha" is barometric dampers are often recommended for coal stoves, be aware this is a perfect source of air if the chimney is packed with creosote..... If it catches fire your chimney fire is now on steroids. This of course is not a concern when using chimney for coal alone. 

As disposal can be problem but it's considered clean fill at least here in PA. It's mostly silica, there are heavy metals etc but these are slightly elevated above dirt.  



bholler said:


> It leaves allot of ash. When I was burning coal I easily had 10 gallons a week.   Wood might be 5 gals a month



Depends on the type/quality and how it's being burned. A white ash coal with low ash content will burn up to powder with a low and steady burn. On the other extreme red ash has a iron content and will even produce clinkers if it's buned too fast. Generally speaking though you can probably expect about 15% by weight, the volume is going to higher because you'll get a granola like ash that is easily crushed, it takes up a lot of space though.


----------



## bholler (Nov 25, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> A clay lined chimney will last indefinitely with coal.


Everything else is your post is very accurate and informative.  But clay lined chimneys absolutely will not last indefinitely with coal or anything else for that matter.  Without a doubt clay is still the best liner for coal but it is still effected by coal ash especially if that ash is exposed to any moisture at all.  We typically see 30 to 40 years out of clay in our area.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 25, 2021)

rwh63 said:


> That was just a bag price.  No idea what a ton would be.  I read one ton equals 2-3 cords of heat output.


You are probably mixing up the energy density, 3 ton of coal will fit in about the same space as one cord of wood. 

Comparing the costs can be problematic. Firstly wood is sold by volume instead of weight. If you knew the weight of the wood(species is irrelevant when using weight) and the moisture content you could get a pretty reliable comparison. 

When using cord as measurement the factors that need to be considered are species, moisture content and other things like creative stacking. 

Generally speaking a cord of well seasoned hardwood is about the same or little less BTU than your average ton of anthracite.  I know some people will mention they cut their own and that can cut the costs if you don't consider your time. My advice is sell the wood and use the proceeds to buy coal.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 25, 2021)

bholler said:


> Everything else is your post is very accurate and informative.  But clay lined chimneys absolutely will not last indefinitely with coal or anything else for that matter.  Without a doubt clay is still the best liner for coal but it is still effected by coal ash especially if that ash is exposed to any moisture at all.  We typically see 30 to 40 years out of clay in our area.


Probably depends on utilization, I know at my old house it was in perfect condition after 30+ years but that boiler was ran 24/7/365.


----------



## bholler (Nov 25, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> Probably depends on utilization, I know at my old house it was in perfect condition after 30+ years but that boiler was ran 24/7/365.


Absolutely running 24/7/365 keeps it all perfectly dry so the formation of acid is at a minimum.


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 25, 2021)

Coal is $350/ton here, I got a flyer in the mail with fuel prices, but that might be a ton in plastic bags, not loose. Bulk loads are probably cheaper by the ton, but most people can't store several tons of nut coal.


----------



## bholler (Nov 25, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> Coal is $350/ton here, I got a flyer in the mail with fuel prices, but that might be a ton in plastic bags, not loose. Bulk loads are probably cheaper by the ton, but most people can't store several tons of nut coal.


Storing coal is easy.  We see lots of exterior coal bins here.  As well as many interior ones as well.  Most old houses here have coal chutes and a bin in the basement.


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 25, 2021)

bholler said:


> Storing coal is easy.  We see lots of exterior coal bins here.  As well as many interior ones as well.  Most old houses here have coal chutes and a bin in the basement.


That's fair, bins would make it easy.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 25, 2021)

If you are using a stove most people go through about 3 tons per year. This can be stored in 8*8*4 bin.  Ideally you have basement bin and can get it delivered via high lift.  Easy storage is one of the benefits for coal over wood. It's only 1/3 the space and it can be stored anywhere... You can even just dump it on the ground however I would recommend a tarp top and bottom.

This is one of my old trucks, it's a 7 ton lift (could be modified for 10).  BTU for BTU I could deliver faster than any oil/gas assuming it was easy access. I had about 30 foot of chute and it could come straight off the back or at an angle. Gravity is a cool thing.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 26, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> I don't know how many lives were saved because of coal, but that has to be offset against the 7500 (to 52000!) lives ending early because of coal every year, in the US alone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There isn't 50K people dying from coal each year. Ever wonder how they calculate that?

Setting aside the dubious data the EPA uses let's suppose we perform an experiment and have 10 people jump off a 20 foot ladder and 2 die. From that we can assume that when a population of 10 falls 20 feet 2 will die, extrapolate from there. If 20 people jump off a 10 foot ladder 2 will die... if 40 people jump off a 5 foot ladder 2 will die. When 300 million jump off a infinitesimally small ladder 2 will still die.

In other words some guy that lives hundreds of miles from any coal activity that eats chicken wings all day while smoking a carton of cigarettes and downing it all with a case beer will have a small percentage of his death attributed to coal.  The  aggregate of that is where the 50K deaths come from.


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 26, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> There isn't 50K people dying from coal each year. Ever wonder how they calculate that?
> 
> Setting aside the dubious data the EPA uses let's suppose we perform an experiment and have 10 people jump off a 20 foot ladder and 2 die. From that we can assume that when a population of 10 falls 20 feet 2 will die, extrapolate from there. If 20 people jump off a 10 foot ladder 2 will die... if 40 people jump off a 5 foot ladder 2 will die. When 300 million jump off a infinitesimally small ladder 2 will still die.
> 
> In other words some guy that lives hundreds of miles from any coal activity that eats chicken wings all day while smoking a carton of cigarettes and downing it all with a case beer will have a small percentage of his death attributed to coal.  The  aggregate of that is where the 50K deaths come from.


So their lives didn't matter? The science is pretty clear on coal, burning it produces toxic ash and sulfuric acid. If those things could be figured out I don't have any other beef with coal aside from it being unsustainable. You have to realize the negative health effects from coal are not limited to the extremely hazardous fumes/combustion contaminants, but the ash is so hard to properly deal with. When buried in the ground it contaminates local ground water by leaching heavy metals into aquafers. NC is having a very hard time cleaning up all the coal ash that Duke Energy just landfilled everywhere. 

You example with the ladder is foolish. You also just made up statistics on the spot. Stop trying to act like coal has not killed millions of people over the years. Everyone wonders why lung cancer is so common despite humans having used tobacco and other smokeable herb products for thousands of years, but couldn't be the coal!


----------



## bholler (Nov 26, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> There isn't 50K people dying from coal each year. Ever wonder how they calculate that?
> 
> Setting aside the dubious data the EPA uses let's suppose we perform an experiment and have 10 people jump off a 20 foot ladder and 2 die. From that we can assume that when a population of 10 falls 20 feet 2 will die, extrapolate from there. If 20 people jump off a 10 foot ladder 2 will die... if 40 people jump off a 5 foot ladder 2 will die. When 300 million jump off a infinitesimally small ladder 2 will still die.
> 
> In other words some guy that lives hundreds of miles from any coal activity that eats chicken wings all day while smoking a carton of cigarettes and downing it all with a case beer will have a small percentage of his death attributed to coal.  The  aggregate of that is where the 50K deaths come from.


I am sorry but that is not in any way how they come up with death statistics.   I have no problem with people using coal but it does without question have it's problems.  And coal ash is in no way clean fill.

I look at what coal exhaust from the power plant near us did to the cars, roofs, siding etc for years before it shut down.  There is absolutely no way that isn't effecting people's health.

Why do you think acid rain issues have gone down in correlation with our power plants moving away from coal?  The scrubbers on the stacks helped allot but they were far from perfect.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 26, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> You example with the ladder is foolish. You also just made up statistics on the spot. Stop trying to act like coal has not killed millions of people over the years.



If you believe it to be foolish I'd suggest directing your complaints to the EPA.  That 50K is representative of the exposure to the entire population.it's not individulized. The exposure to the the entire population is the equivalent of jumping off the infintesimally small ladder. The only major difference between my example and EPA is the EPA doesn't have hard data.


----------



## bholler (Nov 26, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> If you believe it to be foolish I'd suggest directing your complaints to the EPA.  That 50K is representative of the exposure to the entire population.it's not individulized. The exposure to the the entire population is the equivalent of jumping off the infintesimally small ladder. The only major difference between my example and EPA is the EPA doesn't have hard data.


The EPA isn't the one compiling that data.  And at this point yes the ammout of coal used in this country has reduced the exposure to the entire population to a very small amount.  That doesn't mean there are no dangers involved with those who are still exposed.

Oh and btw that 50000 number was the highest estimate and covered deaths related to all power plant emissions not just coal.


----------



## clancey (Nov 27, 2021)

There were four or  five countries that went early to the "most important climate meeting" and they went there early to discuss that they could not get rid of coal in  many many years --one I think was India with lots of people, another was Portugal (I could be wrong) and there were a few more that I cannot remember but the bottom line for them is they could not get rid of coal for a long long time and was going to continue to use it for it was "upgrading and modernizing" their whole way of life this was the only thing that they could do at this time unless there was a better way for them...To me this was sad for it was telling a person who was eating a sandwich verses a 15 course dinner meal...and the 15 course meal people telling them what to do..--very insulting---as well as a abused child telling the whole world what to do in the way of energy responses---this child is only abused in the way of not having a childhood and put into the world of politics where she does not belong--I call this child abuse...As much as I dread saying this---in the world of politics and better for the environment (if they are so concerned) lets go nuclear...so we can all die about the same time as the air washes over the earth in due time...Let coal be cleaned and used and stop fighting against this energy way for many many nations and ours in the future has been supported and saved by coal--it is a life saver..You can delivered coal by train to keep warm in the winter time but oil needs some tending to and a whole lot of people who are unskilled cannot keep up with the job of filling each and every household for them to survive bitter winters. Coal they can shovel up from the trains and take home and survive.. Wood they can burn and survive but coal in stoves need less tending to and less amount of work and worry to continue--with the right equipment fill it up and maybe two or three times a day keep it burning and long lasting as well.. We have plenty, We have plenty of oil as well so lets use it and clean it up and clean up our forests and use our extra wood forest products as well...Put nothing out of bounds--just figure out ways to clean it up so you will not have coal dust on your cars..Don't denigrate it but praise it and thank the Lord for it and figure out how to use it safely. Just a old ladys opinion here, clancey


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

clancey said:


> There were four or  five countries that went early to the "most important climate meeting" and they went there early to discuss that they could not get rid of coal in  many many years --one I think was India with lots of people, another was Portugal (I could be wrong) and there were a few more that I cannot remember but the bottom line for them is they could not get rid of coal for a long long time and was going to continue to use it for it was "upgrading and modernizing" their whole way of life this was the only thing that they could do at this time unless there was a better way for them...To me this was sad for it was telling a person who was eating a sandwich verses a 15 course dinner meal...and the 15 course meal people telling them what to do..--very insulting---as well as a abused child telling the whole world what to do in the way of energy responses---this child is only abused in the way of not having a childhood and put into the world of politics where she does not belong--I call this child abuse...As much as I dread saying this---in the world of politics and better for the environment (if they are so concerned) lets go nuclear...so we can all die about the same time as the air washes over the earth in due time...Let coal be cleaned and used and stop fighting against this energy way for many many nations and ours in the future has been supported and saved by coal--it is a life saver..You can delivered coal by train to keep warm in the winter time but oil needs some tending to and a whole lot of people who are unskilled cannot keep up with the job of filling each and every household for them to survive bitter winters. Coal they can shovel up from the trains and take home and survive.. Wood they can burn and survive but coal in stoves need less tending to and less amount of work and worry to continue--with the right equipment fill it up and maybe two or three times a day keep it burning and long lasting as well.. We have plenty, We have plenty of oil as well so lets use it and clean it up and clean up our forests and use our extra wood forest products as well...Put nothing out of bounds--just figure out ways to clean it up so you will not have coal dust on your cars..Don't denigrate it but praise it and thank the Lord for it and figure out how to use it safely. Just a old ladys opinion here, clancey


Even with the best scrubbers available coal power plants still creat acid rain.  They still pump massive ammouts of emissions into our atmosphere.  Yes some countries are not currently in a position to move away from coal.  No one is denying that but the more countries that do the better.


----------



## all night moe (Nov 27, 2021)

The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.

Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.

Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

all night moe said:


> The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.
> 
> Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.


Can you tell us how the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster with actual examples???

If there was an economically viable option for burning coal cleanly we would be using it.  

If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades?  Long before the "war on coal"


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 27, 2021)

all night moe said:


> The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.
> 
> Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.
> 
> Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.


Coal to oil only makes sense if you can't get the oil in the first place. You can also make oil from wood and other biomass, it's just cheaper to use oil, or even coal. Unfortunately there are no clean ways to burn coal, as no matter what you do sulfuric acid and heavy metals will be created by the combustion of the coal. It might be possible to remove the sulfur and heavy metals when processing the solid coal into a gas or liquid, but I don't know for sure. Nobody has really done this since WWII as there hasn't been a need.


----------



## all night moe (Nov 27, 2021)

bholler said:


> If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades


Because of the oil industry wich took off in the late 1800s and was quickly monopolized. The coal states were wealthy before this. Of course it was dirty but I am betting there are some ways to use it's energy cleaner. I'd bet gasification could be implied here.
I watched a vid of an OWB gasifing tires cut in half with no smoke out the stack. If I can find it..... I will link it.


bholler said:


> Can you tell us how the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster with actual examples??


I'll give you one and it's common sense. They took  much of the sulfur out of D2. Sulfur is the BTU energy in oil. At least the highest energy. It is also lubricating diesel engine's injection systems depend on. So now, and I noticed first hand, with low sulfur fuel you have to burn more per gallon for the same energy used. Come 2014 and the EPA requires DPF for the reburn in exhaust. Now we have engines that are further restricted of making efficient power. It costs tax payer moneys to run this 3 letter alphabet organization.

I'm not saying we should be depositing pollutants in the atmosphere. I think every community should be responsible for themselves.
Don't mind me much ..... I've always been a critical thinker.


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 27, 2021)

The EPA's recommendations are a response to a problem. If industry could come up with a cost effective way of using coal that didn't pollute, they would do it, why wouldn't they?

Better to look at industries attempts to influence legislation to the detriment of all, than to fault those that identify the problem. Car safety, emissions, workplace health and safety etc etc, companies always have to be dragged kicking and screaming.


----------



## stoveliker (Nov 27, 2021)

Sulfur is NOT the BTU in oil. Unless you have been able to bend the laws of physics and chemistry. In which case I suggest you nominate yourself for the big prizes they give out in October in Stockholm.


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

all night moe said:


> Because of the oil industry wich took off in the late 1800s and was quickly monopolized. The coal states were wealthy before this. Of course it was dirty but I am betting there are some ways to use it's energy cleaner. I'd bet gasification could be implied here.
> I watched a vid of an OWB gasifing tires cut in half with no smoke out the stack. If I can find it..... I will link it.


Lack of visible smoke does not mean clean.  Lots of nasty stuff can still be coming out of the stack.

So you are admitting that coal died off long before the EPA regulations etc simply because it couldn't compete with more economic and easier options.




all night moe said:


> I'll give you one and it's common sense. They took much of the sulfur out of D2. Sulfur is the BTU energy in oil. At least the highest energy. It is also lubricating diesel engine's injection systems depend on. So now, and I noticed first hand, with low sulfur fuel you have to burn more per gallon for the same energy used. Come 2014 and the EPA requires DPF for the reburn in exhaust. Now we have engines that are further restricted of making efficient power. It costs tax payer moneys to run this 3 letter alphabet organization.
> 
> I'm not saying we should be depositing pollutants in the atmosphere. I think every community should be responsible for themselves.
> Don't mind me much ..... I've always been a critical thinker.


Ok I agree there are some problems with the current diesel fuel standards.  But none of that shows that the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster.

If you are truly a critical thinker just look at air and water quality before and after the EPA.  I am by no means saying there aren't issues with the EPA.  Far from it but it's existence has made massive positive changes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> Sulfur is NOT the BTU in oil. Unless you have been able to bend the laws of physics and chemistry. In which case I suggest you nominate yourself for the big prizes they give out in October in Stockholm.


Exactly.  If it were it would be burnt and not dumped out the exhaust.


----------



## all night moe (Nov 27, 2021)

bholler said:


> Exactly.  If it were it would be burnt and not dumped out the exhaust.


I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 27, 2021)

bholler said:


> just look at air and water quality before and after the EPA. I am by no means saying there aren't issues with the EPA. Far from it but it's existence has made massive positive changes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.


Exactly. Everyone is going to be able to find some faults depending on their perspective and personal situation but the improvements should be clear to everyone and we shouldn't be looking to go backwards.

Back to the topic, who would care if we got our energy from coal if it came w/o the downsides?


----------



## clancey (Nov 27, 2021)

Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey


----------



## stoveliker (Nov 27, 2021)

all night moe said:


> I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....


Sulfur that burns (oxidizes) often ends up forming acids. Not good for the environment, and not for your exhaust either.

Yes, "building engines to more completely burn" the fuel is part of what the EPA has instigated (pm 2.5, VOCs etc -> catalyst to burn it more completely). Now if we could do that without dumping problematic stuff in our atmosphere, that'd be great. That is also what the EPA is guiding ICE and fuel mfgs to. 

Yes, it's a bureaucratic organization, yes they won't get all calls right the first time or ever, but on balance the EPA is a benefit to this country and beyond. Regardless of that benefit, we should all point at (valid) issues where the EPA does not make the right call. They *are* willing to learn. However, that learning is based on new *data*, and not some opinion of some guy on the tv or the internet.

Same for other such issues, e.g. masks - things (recommendations) are not always perfect the first time around.


----------



## stoveliker (Nov 27, 2021)

jatoxico said:


> Back to the topic, who would care if we got our energy from coal if it came w/o the downsides?



If coal were clean as natural gas, and CO2 neutral, and not a finite resource, I'd be all for it.

(I think nuclear is the way to go. Death rate is rather small, though visible when it happens. Waste is "strong", but very localized - rather than spreading stuff out in our atmosphere, we could dump it in a cubic mile someplace and keep the rest clean.)


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 27, 2021)

Me neither, XOM, CVX, CMP and the rest.


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

all night moe said:


> I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....


The common match stick is mainly phosphorus.  Yes sulphur burns but when it does it produces sulphur dioxide.  When exposed to water it creates a form of sulphuric acid.  Not good for the environment at all.


----------



## bholler (Nov 27, 2021)

clancey said:


> Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey


Try reading what those organizations put out directly and what both sides are saying about it.  Not just the interpretation from the side you want to believe.


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 27, 2021)

clancey said:


> Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey


So what about the money hungry organizations that make a profit off of burning fossil fuels? Do you trust them?


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 28, 2021)

all night moe said:


> Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.



This is not a new process, the Germans used it during WW2. Last I checked oil needs to be around $50 to $60 a barrel to be profitable.  It's a risky venture especially now with all the oil production in the US. You can certainly profit when oil is high but one good dip in oil prices and you're bankrupt. One thing to be aware of is this only produces  diesel, home heating heating oil, jet fuel etc.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 28, 2021)

bholler said:


> If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades?  Long before the "war on coal"



Sure if you look at the local scale, the profits an usage has not benefited many local communities. On the other hand it fueled the industrial revolution helping propel the US to world's largest economy and is helping the Chinese do the same thing. Cheap, reliable and accessible domestic energy source is the cornerstone of any economy.


----------



## thecoalman (Nov 28, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> , and not a finite resource, I'd be all for it.


As practical matter it's infinite at least here in the US.  Reserves that are known to exist here in the US and feasible to mine using today's technology can last for over 100 years.  Estimated and other known reserves that currently can't be mined feasibly go into the thousands of years. 

The reason I say as practical matter is the supply will long outlast it's need. My money is on fusion or geothermal replacing fossil fuels going into the future.


----------



## bholler (Nov 28, 2021)

thecoalman said:


> Sure if you look at the local scale, the profits an usage has not benefited many local communities. On the other hand it fueled the industrial revolution helping propel the US to world's largest economy and is helping the Chinese do the same thing. Cheap, reliable and accessible domestic energy source is the cornerstone of any economy.


Oh absolutely.  It was the fuel behind the industrial revolution.  And it made quite a few people very very rich.  Then when other cheaper and easier options came along those people took their money and ran leaving the mining communities with nothing.


----------



## ChillyB (Nov 28, 2021)

Seems like too many people on this site should be huddling under blankets instead of playing with fire.  Shocked that a site about wood stoves draws so many tree huggers. 

I came here, got the info I needed, but frankly I find too many of the members to be “incompatible” with my world view.  Thanks for the memories.


----------



## stoveliker (Nov 28, 2021)

Please do come back if you have questions. Differences in opinion notwithstanding, we are all willing to help 
and learn with good wood burning practices.

Also, (personal opinion) avoiding people of a different world view makes for a more boring, uniform, bland life. No need to agree with me, it may be different for you. Just an observation from my own perspective.


----------



## SpaceBus (Nov 28, 2021)

ChillyB said:


> Seems like too many people on this site should be huddling under blankets instead of playing with fire.  Shocked that a site about wood stoves draws so many tree huggers.
> 
> I came here, got the info I needed, but frankly I find too many of the members to be “incompatible” with my world view.  Thanks for the memories.


Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out 

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out the downsides to burning coal. It's not surprising in the slightest that a forum dedicated to burning renewable fuel sources would find fault with burning coal.


----------



## stoveliker (Nov 28, 2021)

Though the website is for responsible burning of all sources (my phrasing).   I think burning trash (in a no commercial way) is never responsible, but coal can be. So I think both sides should find a home here. (And exposing oneself to the opposing view is always good imo.)

Also, this thread is not in the green room forum.

At least that is my reading of the "rules of this site".

Back to the topic - at least a little bit - no coal here but burning down coals because I need to reload before bedtime ;-)


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 28, 2021)

ChillyB said:


> I came here, got the info I needed, but frankly I find too many of the members to be “incompatible” with my world view.


Considering you were helped you could've just said nothing, or thanks. What a classy move.


----------

