# What happens when you throw a lump of coal on your wood stove?



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

Out west, there is very little coal avalible for burning, and its actually illeagle in my state.  Im courious, why are coal stoves so specific? If i could buy coal why cant i put a pice on my wood fire? If the answer is yes, that you can throw coal on your wood fire, does stove type make a difference? Type meaning steel, cast iron, or soapstone?


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

even though it is a illeagle fuel here, i did find a source of bituminous coal, i know its not as good as anthracite (sp?0 coal, but do people burn it? the vendor that i found that carries it sells it by the piece for people that want to play jokes on people for christmas, but he will sell the bags (70lbs) for 20 bucks.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

I just found on hearthstones website that the sulfur in coal will etch your glass, coal stoves dont use glass? And it also says that coal burns at very high temps, i dont see a problem with that with the soapstone, but it might wreck the burn tubes. Do coal stoves not use secondary burn systems?


----------



## roac (Feb 4, 2006)

Illegal? Why bother making it illegal if you can't get it? By the way I think Montana is the closest for us in Idaho (same in Colorado?) to get coal but I'm sure shipping it here for residential use would be cost prohibitive. I'm sure it isn't commercially illegal to burn. A lot of big  industry uses coal for their process. As far as home use I think coal stoves are built more robust for the higher heat source. Not sure on the glass but it isn't really glass either so who knows.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

I dont want to burn it, i have lots of customers that ask about it. I am just trying to educate myself on coal. I would consider trying a piece or two on my established fire at night to hold it over, and your right, i use the glass term loosely, its ceramic. And i dont want to ruin my nice hearthstone ceramic glass, it has that nice IR coating on the inside that relflects a lot of heat back in the box, and most glass shops dont carry it. I hate to order one from hearthstone.
Ryan


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

I think i have found enough information to discourage my customers from using coal in there woodstove LOL, there are some real horror stories on the net.


----------



## precaud (Feb 4, 2006)

With the right appliance, coal is a wonderful heat source. In the 80's I used to buy truckloads of coal from somewhere is CO, 23 tons at a time. It was bituminous but harder and cleaner than most. I sold enough in 100lb bags to pay for what I used and a little extra. I was a Jotul dealer at the time, and the Jotul 404 coalstove was great, as well as the Surdiac coalstoves that Jotul was distributing at the time that were super nice. The Godin stoves are excellent for coal as well, and still available new here. The only thing I didn't like about coal was the sulfury smell it gave to the house. If the anthracite mine 15 miles south of here ever opens again, I'll get a coal burner immediately!


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> Out west, there is very little coal avalible for burning, and its actually illeagle in my state.  Im courious, why are coal stoves so specific? If i could buy coal why cant i put a pice on my wood fire? If the answer is yes, that you can throw coal on your wood fire, does stove type make a difference? Type meaning steel, cast iron, or soapstone?



In general, here is what happens.

1. It surely could screw up a cat stove, so forget about that one!
2. Coal burns slower than wood, so the coal will usually not be consumed totally, while the wood around it may.
3. Coal produces 10X the ash of wood, so mixing a lot of it can really mess up the bed of charcoal in a wood stove.

All that said, there is little problem with throwing, as you say; a couple lumps of coal onto the red hot embers of a wood stove. In fact, in TN back in the early 70's - when I started using stoves, it was a treat for us to have a lump or two on expecially cold nights.

Of course, we get into the hard coal and soft coal thing - hard coal being tough to ignite in any stove without grates and air from underneath.


----------



## Martin Strand III (Feb 4, 2006)

Hey MSG:

You do pretty good having a conversation with yourself.  

Back to your query about burning coal in wood stoves.  Can it be done?  Sure, but I wouldn't do it routinely for a few reasons:

1.  To burn well, coal needs in-air from underneath - wood likes it at and above the level of the fire.  Most stoves can't do both.
2.  Soft coal (bituminous) burns dirty with lots of toxic pollutants; hard coal (anthracite) burns clean and hot with sulfur residue which forms sulfuric acid with moisture and can corrode your system unless cleaned out periodically (which you should be doing anyway).
3.  Coal burns hotter than wood but is not good when outside temps are about 40* F or higher (poor draft then).
4.  Coal is a limited resource and wood is not, if managed properly.

But you said "a lump of coal on your wood stove", not burning lots of coal and wood together, so pardon the diversion.

Aye,
Marty


----------



## wg_bent (Feb 4, 2006)

Marty was right on track.  If you want to understand the difference between coal and wood stoves, Take a look at the parts schematic of the Morso 1410.  It can be configured as a coal or wood stove.  The wood version has a single air inlet, secondary burn tubes, and a somewhat different baffle system, I think to support the secondary burn tubes.  The Coal verson has a second air inlet that allows the primary air to come in from below the coal, thus directing the air through the coal bed.  No secondary burn tubes, since the top air inlet allows air to ignite the gasses coming off the coal when you first put coal on the fire.  The baffle system looks a bit beefier and simpler.  A coal stove will burn wood but not as completely as a wood stove, and will not meet the EPA limits.  Throwing a lump or two of coal seems like it might work but I'm not sure that the coal will continue to burn after the wood coals are gone.  Never tried it.  Also, the coal will be sitting directly on the fire brick and will be very hot.  Not sure that's all that good for the brick.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 4, 2006)

Im almost a expert now, thanks! i do tend to talk to myself alot, it must be the one hour commute each way to work.  I will look closely at coal stoves this year at the show in salt lake. I dont think i will be throwing any type of coal in my hearthstone even if i could get it. It was all hypothetical anyway, and i appreciate all the information! My customers wont think im such a idiot when they ask me about coal and i have that blank look in my face, we all hate that look.


----------



## webbie (Feb 4, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> I just found on hearthstones website that the sulfur in coal will etch your glass, coal stoves dont use glass? And it also says that coal burns at very high temps, i dont see a problem with that with the soapstone, but it might wreck the burn tubes. Do coal stoves not use secondary burn systems?



Since coal stoves use similar glass as wood stoves, the glass thing is not a big deal....sure, it might cloud up after a numner of years, but in my experience it does not break or wear.

Coal does have a secondary burn, but vastly smaller than wood and it often does not have to be designed into coal stoves. For instance, Russo stoves just had a little spacer around the door glass which allowed a tiny bit of air above the fire.

Think of it this way - with coal the heat is mostly in the red coal bed (pure carbon?), whereas with wood, the heat is as much as 50/50 in the embers and the gases. I think coal, depending on type, is 90/10 or 95/5, etc.

So, there are vastly fewer gases to burn, hence secondary burn is not as important.


----------



## Martin Strand III (Feb 5, 2006)

Craig:

I agree except the "heat" (energy) from burning wood comes from the wood solids:wood gases at about 1/3 : 2/3   (not 1/2 : 1/2 or 50/50).  There is about 1% non-combustible component to wood which results in ash.

Aye,
Marty


----------



## webbie (Feb 5, 2006)

Marty S said:
			
		

> Craig:
> 
> I agree except the "heat" (energy) from burning wood comes from the wood solids:wood gases at about 1/3 : 2/3   (not 1/2 : 1/2 or 50/50).  There is about 1% non-combustible component to wood which results in ash.
> 
> ...



I think it depends on the wood - like pines and such have a lot more gases and oaks might have a lot more coals????? Or something like that.....working from memory here, so the percentages are just gueses - again from memory wood results in as little as 1/10 of one percent ash and perhaps as much as 1% or more - and coal can be 4% to as much as 10% ash. I'm talking weight here, not vol.....

Anyhow, that's the big diff between coal and wood. Fixed carbon vs a mixture of all kinds of jazz!

Here's some drivel that seems to say gases are even more than 50% (but that's one reason I DIDN'T go to college)

---------------
Volatiles

Wood and other types of biomass contain approx. 80% volatiles (in percentage of dry matter). This means that the component part of wood will give up 80% of its weight in the form of gases, while the remaining part will be turned into charcoal. This is one reason why a sack of charcoal seems light compared to the visual volume. The charcoal has more or less kept the original volume of the green wood, but has lost 80% of its weight.

The high content of volatiles means that the combustion air should generally be introduced above the fuel bed (secondary air), where the gases are burnt, and not under the fuel bed (primary air).

Structural Elements of Wood

The structural elements (ultimate analysis) of the organic portion of wood are carbon (45 - 50 percent), oxygen (40 - 45 percent), hydrogen (4.5- 6 percent) and nitrogen (0.3 - 3.5 percent). The distinct advantage of woody biomass over fossil fuels is the small amount of sulphur. The ultimate analysis of some tree species show that carbon and hydrogen contents are rather uniform among species. Bark has a higher percentage of carbon and hydrogen than wood. This is most visibly the case with birch and alder.

In the proximate analysis the amount of volatiles is 65- 95 percent, fixed carbon 17 -25 percent and ash content 0.08- 2.3 percent. Please note that the information of the properties of wood fuels has been collected from several different sources. The most comprehensive data of wood fuel properties was available from ECN laboratories from Netherlands.
--------------

OK, so let's not repeat that swirling smoke stuff - I think we all agree that wood varies, but in any case has vastly more gases to burn than coal.


----------



## wg_bent (Feb 6, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Marty S said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe they must be talking about Sumac.   :cheese:   Ever throw a peice of that on a fire?  It's like the stuff is soaked in Gasoline.  Then in 10 minutes there's nothing left.


----------



## Martin Strand III (Feb 7, 2006)

Dylan:

If the difference between "50/50 vs 33/67 is ‘splitting hairs’." (17% in my book), your bank account would get virtually no interest, profit margins in business would disappear, burning wet or dry wood wouldn't matter, global warming would not exist, all knowledge bases would need to be re-written, etc "ad nauseum".

Aye,
Marty

Grandma used to say, "Non illegitimi carborundum."


----------



## smirnov3 (Feb 7, 2006)

One concern about burning coal for home heat is the amount of mercury in it. Mercury is a neurotoxin, and may (emphasis on MAY) trigger autism

a study in Texas found a 1:1 correlation between atmospheric mercury levels and autism rates in the local schools, and another study found that the number of new cases of autism in Californai has dropped  for the first time when a mercury preservative was was withdrawn from use in infant vaccines (it took them 6 years to notice, because CA only officially diagnoses Autism when the kids enter elementary school)


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

Well, I guess we've done enough theorizin' now it's time to get to experimentin'.  So nothing left to do but build us a nice cozy wood fire, grab a couple of lumps of Wyoming's finest, and chuck them in the fire (red arrows).  We will call the start of the experiment time = 0 or T=0.


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

This is a side view at T=0.  The coal just sits there peacefully, nothing too much happening yet.


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

In the interest of brevity, let's just say you have to wait until about T=30 minutes for anything "exciting" to happen.  The coal is well involved right now.  A fine layer of white ash is starting to form and flames are coming from the coal, although not much (if any) visible smoke.  One lump on the outer edge of the fire (red arrow) hasn't really caught on yet and is still pretty much intact.


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

T=45 minutes, things are starting to perk right along now.  The coals are really burning like...well, coal!  The glass has not etched into a frosted masterpiece, the stove has not melted and everything appears normal.  The fire does have somewhat a radioactive glow in the photo, but I think that is due to the CCD in the camera actually picking up some of the near infra-red light and converting it to visible.  Bizarre!


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

T=50 minutes.  Our experiment is drawing to a close.  The lumps of coal have been reduced to ...coals, along with most of the wood - I just used some small splits to get the fire going.  Everything from this point on seems pretty peaceful!


----------



## JAred (Feb 9, 2006)

Interesting,

I'm not gonna say I want to burn coal all the time but it would be fun to experiment. Theirs a pile of coal in the grandpa's basement thats been there for decades I would'nt mind trying it just for kicks. My wood pile is getting boring....Time to find some apple wood or somthing else. Somthing stronger, the pine is not doin it anymore. Iwant more Flames I want more heat burn! Burn! Burn! Burn! I need somthing stronger This pine stuff is'nt as strong as it used to be I can't help my self. I need to burn somthing.

I think I'm addicted.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 9, 2006)

This thread has been very helpfull, that was a cool experement. I wonder long term if it would hurt anything? what do you think? that glow LOOKS HOT! wich is good. Maybe i will buy a bag of this crap soft coal and see what happens. Hopefully none of the neighbors wont call the smoke police on me. Its a good thing that i dont have any real close neighbors anyway. Can i expect smoke out of my chimney? will it smell funny? more importanly, will it be possible to tell that im burning coal?


----------



## Corey (Feb 9, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> This thread has been very helpfull, that was a cool experement. I wonder long term if it would hurt anything? what do you think? that glow LOOKS HOT! wich is good. Maybe i will buy a bag of this crap soft coal and see what happens. Hopefully none of the neighbors wont call the smoke police on me. Its a good thing that i dont have any real close neighbors anyway. Can i expect smoke out of my chimney? will it smell funny? more importanly, will it be possible to tell that im burning coal?



MSG - If you are looking at long term as in tons of coal per year for many years, you may want to study the differences in coal and wood stoves (or the combo) stoves, and see how it applies to your model.  If you are talking a couple of 40# bags a year just for fun, I can't see that it would be too much difference from wood.  I know the glow looks hot on the photo, but in reality, it's just your standard orange-red coal glow.  The camera is picking up some of the infra-red light and converting it to visible.  I've attached a shot looking at a remote control LED.  The LED is invisible to the naked eye, but emits strongly in the IR.  The camera picks it up as if it were white.

As far as smoke, if you are burning coal in a pure wood stove, my experience is the bigger chunks, the better.  I am limited to hand stoking, so the whole black art of keeping a coal fire going and all the air flow and feed rates don't really apply.  This is really on the level of a wood fire burning coal.  If you load up with a huge pile of coal, or really fine coal, it will probably smoke some.  But if you keep the load small and the pieces relatively big for good air flow, the smoke is minimal.  Although the neighbors will still know you are burning coal...at least if they have any sense of smell!

Corey


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

cozy heat for my feet said:
			
		

> T=45 minutes, things are starting to perk right along now.  The coals are really burning like...well, coal!  The glass has not etched into a frosted masterpiece, the stove has not melted and everything appears normal.  The fire does have somewhat a radioactive glow in the photo, but I think that is due to the CCD in the camera actually picking up some of the near infra-red light and converting it to visible.  Bizarre!



Next thing you know, you guys will be setting fire to barns and documenting the process here in real time! Now that should keep you warm for a few hours....

One time in WV our tool shed caught on fire - the house was about 30 feet away and was starting to heat up and combust - only a bucket brigade and wet blankets saved it! Muddy road so the fire trucks could not make it - the fire guys just walked up and looked.

Some good "pops" when the propane tanks and stuff like that in the shed went.


----------



## webbie (Feb 9, 2006)

Anton Smirnov said:
			
		

> One concern about burning coal for home heat is the amount of mercury in it. Mercury is a neurotoxin, and may (emphasis on MAY) trigger autism
> 
> a study in Texas found a 1:1 correlation between atmospheric mercury levels and autism rates in the local schools, and another study found that the number of new cases of autism in Californai has dropped  for the first time when a mercury preservative was was withdrawn from use in infant vaccines (it took them 6 years to notice, because CA only officially diagnoses Autism when the kids enter elementary school)



If I'm not wrong, the mercury in coal would be more of a danger from power plants that burn rail cars full of the stuff every hour. I do not think the amount that would come from a residential coal burner - and then into the air, would be of much consequence...strangely enough, the clean coal (anthracite) has more mercury than the dirty stuff....

No doubt that mercury is bad stuff, though.....when I was a kid they probably didn't know it and we could buy it at the local hobby shop and fiddle with it along with our other 100 chemicals (I doubt kids today are allowed to have REAL chemistry sets like we did) - Heck, my bro and I made Chlorine gas when we were 11 years old!

In fact, that's another story - and when I learned about pressure relief! Suffice it to say that my Mr. Fritzs 6th grade science class needed to be evacuated and I coughed for the rest of the day.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 9, 2006)

i woundnt burn much coal, if any. You simply cant buy it here regularly. The coal i found that i wanted to experement with was left over from a christmas shop, they have a 70 pound bag of it with a few pieces missing. The only reason that i want to use it is because i want to be able to talk more intellengly about it to my customers. I think i have found plenty of data here that i can forgo the experement. They would probably lock me up if i got caught anyway. I have found this thread very intresting, and i thank all that responded.


----------



## keyman512us (Feb 28, 2007)

Hey MSG..hey all.
...Just FYI the Powder River region of Wyoming has the largest bituminous deposits in North America...and almost in the world. Last time I checked (being a railfan) 60-70 train loads (of up to 115 railcars) per week haul coal from there. It baffles me that y'all don't burn coal out west.
.....But seeing as I lived in Colorado (along the front range) for almost four years I know all to well why it won't happen in that state...to many Californians. I still visit friends in Colorado from time to time but I could never live there again...gave me nightmares about what it would be like to live in California. (lol).
...And yes I am bashing California quite heavily...I have a right to because I am from Massachusetts...(lol)

On a serious note though...If you want to experiment with burning coal, get your hands on some Anthracite (quality black diamonds from PA). I've been burning wood since I was "knee high to a grass hopper"... but I just started burning Anthracite a month and a half ago in my combo unit and man am I impressed! Long term is to burn both, wood when I have time to screw around with it...coal for when I need long burn times.

After burning Anthracite coal I know why the Northeast switched to oil burners...people just got plain lazy.

Look deeply into Anthracite, talk to people that burn it, and you will be amazed and educated.


----------



## restorer (Feb 28, 2007)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> Out west, there is very little coal avalible for burning, and its actually illeagle in my state.  Im courious, why are coal stoves so specific? If i could buy coal why cant i put a pice on my wood fire? If the answer is yes, that you can throw coal on your wood fire, does stove type make a difference? Type meaning steel, cast iron, or soapstone?



MSG, don't want to argue, but there are massive reserves of coal in the West. Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico produce something like 90% of their electrical power from coal. Large amounts in Utah and New Mexico are exported to California. See data on the Intermountain power project and the 4 corners power project. There is supposed to be the largest coal reserve in the world under the Kaparowits (Sp) Plateau in Southern Utah. I have no knowledge about coal in Colorado, but do know the issues revolve around the problems with industrial use of coal in Pueblo and Colorado Springs.Seems ironic that you take the power from the Jim Bridger Plant in Wyoming.  I was not aware that you could not use coal in Colorado. Seems ridiculous not to use an available resource, even if you required strict emission standards.


----------



## begreen (Feb 28, 2007)

If most of Denver/Boulder burned coal, residentially as well as commercially, I suspect there would be lawsuits from there to DC by the downwind states. Also, due to the high-altitude and potential temperature inversions, I would think that the smoke would linger quite a while at times. That could have deadly potential.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 28, 2007)

i was ignorant about coal at the time of this thread. Hearth.com has educated me pretty well.


----------



## slowzuki (Feb 28, 2007)

> Next thing you know, you guys will be setting fire to barns and documenting the process here in real time! Now that should keep you warm for a few hours....



well now that you mention it I have some sequences of that, elapsed time, 20 minutes.

Hmm the preview is black but when you click it it shows the building.  This was a friends barn we burned down, used to be a stable.  It was packed to the roof with junk wood from his property, hay bales, various combustible fluids etc etc.


----------



## slowzuki (Feb 28, 2007)

and the last three, again, total time, 20 min


----------



## DoubleClutch (Feb 28, 2007)

Marty S said:
			
		

> Coal is a limited resource and wood is not, if managed properly.



Yep, if we continue burning coal at the current rate, it'll only last us about 250 more years!  ;-)


----------



## Andre B. (Feb 28, 2007)

How about comparing the heavy metal emissions of coal verses wood.
arsenic, manganese, mercury, uranium, thorium, chromium, cadmium, boron, selenium, and nickel, etc.


----------



## Corey (Feb 28, 2007)

[speculation]  
I would really wonder if they aren't very close on a btu-to-btu basis.  These elements weren't put in the coal or wood by aliens.  Most likely what ever was growing at the time absorbed the elements from the atmosphere and soil in which it was growing.  So was the earth more naturally polluted by heavy metals eons ago when the coal formed? Most likely not.  These trace metals are more likely just a fact of life and are continually circulating in the biosphere.
[/speculation]

If anybody has some comparisons from some reputable sources it would certainly be neat to compare.

Corey


----------



## tradergordo (Feb 28, 2007)

Would be an interesting expariment to see how sticking a lump of burning coal in the throat of an everburn stove would affect secondary combustion - this might actually make the stove a lot more efficient?  Just a guess.  I don't personally like the idea of burning coal based on the pollution, not to mention contamination of your ashes (which would then have to be landfilled), but where I live (Pennsylvania is like the coal capitol of the world I think) I can actually get coal literally for free (I've seen more than one craigslist post from people with tons of it in their basements wanting someone to haul it away).


----------



## berlin (Feb 28, 2007)

"I would really wonder if they aren’t very close on a btu-to-btu basis"

yup, they are, at least in the USA, because our coals haven't undergone mineralization like that of many somewhat poisonous chinese coals have. additionally the carcinogenic pah's from burning soft (bituminous) coals in well designed bituimnous stove are generally less than average epa cert. woodstove. don't even waste your time worrying about mercury in coal used for home heating, you don't burn enough, and per btu, eastern hardwood is only slightly less. 

btw, to burn soft coal decently you need a stove designed for it, and yes it will still smoke, and yes it will smell much different than what you're used to. it also has a tendancy in a bulk loading stove to flair the volitiles rather suddenly and violently, so have good gaskets, keep the doors closed and seal and screw the smokepipe together otherwise you soot all over your home when this happens. 

btw, it is not illegal to heat with coal, soft or otherwise anywhere in colorado outside of boulder, and possibly other urban areas in those states. so few people heat with it, and so few people would, even with the low price, laws like that are a waste of time.


"not to mention contamination of your ashes (which would then have to be landfilled), "

this is not true very little ash from US coal is considered haz-mat or anything close. most of it is used as roadway anti-skid as well as fill, road bedding, concrete and brick mfg., asphalt pavement etc. you may not know it, but coal ash is all around you, in things u use and drive on everyday.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Feb 28, 2007)

the denver metro area (7 front range counties) is banned from burning coal. western slope, north east, and south colorado can burn coal if you can find it.


----------



## DavidJinPa (Mar 1, 2007)

Always learning reading the posts. Seens this, and it got me wondering. "The high content of volatiles (with wood) means that the combustion air should generally be introduced above the fuel bed (secondary air), where the gases are burnt, and not under the fuel bed (primary air)"... I've been struggling with consistent burns in my stove which is a wood/coal. Should I cut off the air from underneath, and just be using the door vents? Hmmm.


----------



## DriftWood (Mar 1, 2007)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> Out west, there is very little coal avalible for burning,


 Wyoming ships it every where else, for coal fired electric plants.  Just go down to the RR tracks just east of the Rockies one of those long Wyoming coal trains has probably lost a few pieces. I can find coal on the beach here at Lake Huron. Its form shipwrecks and glacier till.


----------



## nwaelder (Mar 1, 2007)

Great experiment and thread!
For those interested, there is a forum devoted to burining coal.
http://www.nepadigital.com/bb/index.php

Regards


----------



## elkimmeg (Mar 1, 2007)

during and after the energy crunch of the mid 70's many a person installed wood /coal stoves One that was really popular was the Chubby they wer ornate looking cylinder stoves

 I tell ya they threw some heat. As energy prices went down the demand for coal left. it is real hard to find anyone that delivers bulk. I still see many of these stoves hooked up but have not been run in years  I can remember in the late 50's helping my grandfather shovel coal in the furnace.  one main floor grate no heat up stairs and a Kero cooking stove in the kitchen that also was the second source of heat.


----------



## tradergordo (Mar 1, 2007)

berlin said:
			
		

> "not to mention contamination of your ashes (which would then have to be landfilled), "
> 
> this is not true very little ash from US coal is considered haz-mat or anything close. most of it is used as roadway anti-skid as well as fill, road bedding, concrete and brick mfg., asphalt pavement etc. you may not know it, but coal ash is all around you, in things u use and drive on everyday.



It may be fine for roads, but according to what I've read, nothing will grow where coal ash has been dumped.  See this thread for example.  Salt is dumped on roads too, but I certainly wouldn't want it anywhere on my property or in my woods.


----------



## Corie (Mar 1, 2007)

Hey traderg,

If you'd like to do a coal experiment on the old everburn, I'd be more than happy to supply you with a few lumps


----------



## berlin (Mar 1, 2007)

"It may be fine for roads, but according to what I’ve read, nothing will grow where coal ash has been dumped"

that's not true at all for most us coal ash. i have grass growing over many deep areas of coal ash in my yard; you wouldn't even know it. the minerals in coal ash are only slightly more concentrated than the soils in general. 

btw, i'm not sure what happened to the rest of that thread, because i'm pretty sure i posted some replys to gibbonboy's nonsense.


----------



## DavidJinPa (Mar 4, 2007)

Heres what I found out last night/this morning. It makes a lot of heat in my stove.  Think I added more that a lump though, Oppps.. lol


----------



## restorer (Mar 4, 2007)

berlin said:
			
		

> "It may be fine for roads, but according to what I’ve read, nothing will grow where coal ash has been dumped"
> 
> that's not true at all for most us coal ash. i have grass growing over many deep areas of coal ash in my yard; you wouldn't even know it. the minerals in coal ash are only slightly more concentrated than the soils in general.
> 
> btw, i'm not sure what happened to the rest of that thread, because i'm pretty sure i posted some replys to gibbonboy's nonsense.



Berlin,
I'm with you. My Grandfather would always mix coal ash and wood ash with his compost pit. All green cuttings from the yard would start at one end processed through the middle and taken to the garden from the other end.  He, also used sand, bone meal, blood meal, and pot ash. I am sure he did some tests, but he adjusted the PH with the additives. He had the greatest gardens I have ever seen.


----------

