# Coal pellets I wonder



## jmcp (Nov 29, 2011)

I see a European company making coal pellets mostly for power plants but they look just like wood pellets except the are black.I wonder could they be burned in a pellet stove if they could one would get more btu's.Here is the link any thoughts.


http://riverbasinenergy.com/pages/products/bio-coal-pellets.php


----------



## jtakeman (Nov 29, 2011)

We had a member that tossed in some rice coal in his little Englander. 

What we all got from the experiance is if you want to burn coal. Buy a coal stoker. Pellet stoves are not rated to burn coal. Eric should pop in with a safety alert and most likely it will be in red! Don't try this at home! ;-)


----------



## tjnamtiw (Nov 29, 2011)

There's a reason coal burners have HEAVY DUTY cast iron grates!  Coal burns at much higher temperatures than pellet stove components can handle.  If a pellet stove manufacturer wanted you to burn coal, he would say so.  Coal stoves can also be as much as 650 degrees on their radiating exterior surfaces.


----------



## mlarson (Nov 29, 2011)

There was once a place in or near Clearfield PA that made wood pellets with a mix of coal dust (fines).  Don't know how they worked as this was before my Pellet burning days.  But my father in-law was telling me about them.  He used to be a high school chemistry/enviromental teacher.  So he was on the up and up with all the local news.  Must not of worked or I would think they would still be around.  Poor product = poor sales.


----------



## peakbagger (Nov 29, 2011)

There is a new product called "biocoal" which is wood that has been pyrolyzed (heated with minimal oxygen). There is a large plant planned for Millinocket Maine. I expect when it hits the market, regular wood pellets will have a tough time competing as biocoal has a higher btu content per pound  and doesnt absorb water. The pellet plants that get sawdust from other processes like a sawmill will porbably survive but an operation like NE Wood Pellets will have a rough time as they have to do a lot more grinding and drying of low grade wood. No need to pakage in waterproof bags, it can be shipped in open trucks.

The only down side I see is that I think the Biocoal pellets could be messy, sort of like charcoal.


----------



## spirilis (Nov 29, 2011)

That's basically *is* charcoal... funny how they're calling it "biocoal" lol...
I'm wondering how producing "biocoal" pellets is cost effective though, since there's extra processing involved and a significant portion of the potential BTUs are removed (as tar/smoke) and I can't imagine it'd be cheaper per BTU than taking the straight wood and making a pellet out of that.  The only advantage would be volume--more heat in the same size bag, but the cost per bag would be much higher I'd think?


----------



## spirilis (Nov 29, 2011)

Ok actually the more I think about it, "biocoal" makes sense as a delivery mechanism for non-wood biomass... wood biomass you might as well make a wood pellet, but feeding grass/brush/etc. into a retort or kiln to produce charcoal out of it may be a reasonable way to make a "standard" product out of any form of biomass.  If the feedstock is dirt cheap then it could be a competitive product.


----------



## hoverfly (Nov 30, 2011)

There might have a net benefit in processing, you heat the biomass with no oxygen, and the biomass will convert in to a combustible gas. Link> wood Gas The end result is You could use the gas to run the pellet plant. Take the char grind it into powder and run it through the extruder, maybe the same one for making wood pellets.


----------



## nate379 (Nov 30, 2011)

My Dad heats their house with a rice coal stove.

They tore out the homebuilt wood stove this summer.  It served at heating for almost 28 years.

New stove: http://alaskastove.com/site/index.p...ct_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=142


----------



## jtakeman (Nov 30, 2011)

Folks around here call it biochar and they put it into their gardens. Pretty pricey too!

As for burning it in a pellet stove, We chatted about it. But just touch some of it and you will see why most woundn't bother.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Nov 30, 2011)

NATE379 said:
			
		

> My Dad heats their house with a rice coal stove.
> 
> They tore out the homebuilt wood stove this summer.  It served at heating for almost 28 years.
> 
> New stove: http://alaskastove.com/site/index.p...ct_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=142



What's also nice about the new coal stokers is something called a power exhauster, which is kind of like our combustion blowers.  It mounts outside on side of your house and pulls out the exhaust, putting a negative pressure on the burn chamber.  You run your piping like many do for pellet stoves right out the side of the house.  No need for a chimney.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 2, 2011)

Biocoal Article - Millinocket Me 

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/01/business/cate-street-buys-biocoal-technology-rights-for-20m/


----------



## nate379 (Dec 3, 2011)

I think my Dad hooked his into the existing chimney, but I'm not sure.  The oil burner is also that chimney, but that is allowed in Maine.



			
				tjnamtiw said:
			
		

> NATE379 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tjnamtiw (Dec 3, 2011)

That's amazing that it's allowed, Nate, because every manual I've read said that is an absolute no-no.  Does he burn anthracite or bituminous coal?  What does he pay for a ton up there in Maine?  The power exhauster might be a good option.


----------



## nate379 (Dec 3, 2011)

I'm not sure, I'll have to ask.  He just installed that stove this summer and I haven't been over they since last Christmas.  Will be headed out there this Christmas again though.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Dec 3, 2011)

i expect the higher concentration of heat in the burn pot would quickly reduce it to scrap. pellet stoves are designed to burn pellets made of wood, not coal, could be an expensive experiment.

that said i wouldnt mind having a ton or so to play with in my lab :cheese:


----------



## jtakeman (Dec 3, 2011)

stoveguy2esw said:
			
		

> i expect the higher concentration of heat in the burn pot would quickly reduce it to scrap. pellet stoves are designed to burn pellets made of wood, not coal, could be an expensive experiment.
> 
> that said i wouldnt mind having a ton or so to play with in my lab :cheese:



Mike, You get a visit from pook?


----------



## SmokeEater (Dec 3, 2011)

I think what jmcp is talking about is what is called torrified biomass.  This has one "trade name" of BioCoal along with several others.  It's not really coal but biomass, usually from a wood source, that's been ground, doesn't have to be debarked, then dried, and then heated without oxygen to about 300 degrees C, and finally pelletized.  The neat thing about the torrified biomass is that it has two noticeable features over pellets, one is that it will not absorb water and so can be stored in many ways, even in damp or wet environments and it has more than one and a half times the energy of wood pellets by weight.  Probably most stove manufacturers will easily be able to modify their products to burn the torrified pellets by adjusting auger feed speeds and fuel/air mixtures.  Some stove may be able to burn these pellets without mods.  What's neat though is that we'll be able to store the year's supply in a little more than half the space and not worry about the pellets getting damp or wet.  Also, guess is that the price won't be any different for that year's supply.


----------



## checkthisout (Dec 3, 2011)

SmokeEater said:
			
		

> I think what jmcp is talking about is what is called torrified biomass.  This has one "trade name" of BioCoal along with several others.  It's not really coal but biomass, usually from a wood source, that's been ground, doesn't have to be debarked, then dried, and then heated without oxygen to about 300 degrees C, and finally pelletized.  The neat thing about the torrified biomass is that it has two noticeable features over pellets, one is that it will not absorb water and so can be stored in many ways, even in damp or wet environments and it has more than two times the energy of wood pellets by weight.  Probably most stove manufacturers will easily be able to modify their products to burn the torrified pellets by adjusting auger feed speeds and fuel/air mixtures.  Some stove may be able to burn these pellets without mods.  What's neat though is that we'll be able to store the year's supply in half the space and not worry about the pellets getting damp or wet.  Also, guess is that the price won't be any different for that year's supply.



I doubt any pellet stove could have it's feed and airflow rate reduced enough to handle actual coal. 

The energy density is so much greater than wood.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Dec 3, 2011)

break up a couple of charcoal briquettes and put them in the burn pot to see what you get.  That's what we are talking about here.  Pictures please from the brave soul who does it.


----------



## jtakeman (Dec 3, 2011)

tjnamtiw said:
			
		

> break up a couple of charcoal briquettes and put them in the burn pot to see what you get.  That's what we are talking about here.  Pictures please from the brave soul who does it.



Then look at your hands, Thats whats gonna be in your hopper if you burn biochar/biocoal.  Just saying.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Dec 3, 2011)

j-takeman said:
			
		

> tjnamtiw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yep!

edit: although it does say that they have mechanical strength and reduced dust.  I wonder what 'reduced' means..  Why don't they just call it charcoal?


----------



## checkthisout (Dec 3, 2011)

It makes little sense to put a "dried" fuel into your stove like Charcoal. 

It takes a lot of heat energy to make the product yet your stove would still put the same amount of waste-heat up the flue which means the product would be much less efficient overall than regular wood pellets.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Dec 3, 2011)

Checkthisout said:
			
		

> It makes little sense to put a "dried" fuel into your stove like Charcoal.
> 
> It takes a lot of heat energy to make the product yet your stove would still put the same amount of waste-heat up the flue which means the product would be much less efficient overall than regular wood pellets.



????? Yes, I see the added heat to produce the product as a drawback but if the price per MBTU is less than wood pellets, then you are ahead of the game if the same amount of heat goes up the flue since the product puts out 220%% more heat per pound.  

The real question still remains that your pellet stove isn't made to handle that much heat unless you can REALLY cut back on the feed rate.


----------



## checkthisout (Dec 5, 2011)

tjnamtiw said:
			
		

> Checkthisout said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno. The cheapest charcoal is probably around 80 cents a pound. 

That's the equivalent of paying $32.00 a bag for pellets. I can't see a 40 lbs bag of charcoal providing more heat out of the stove than 5-6 bags of pellets.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Dec 5, 2011)

Oranges and apples syndrome.    Two entirely different processes plus two different markets.


----------



## SmokeEater (Dec 5, 2011)

Folks, biocoal is only a trade name.  The wood product I was describing is said to be torrified.  It's a simple chemical process where some of the VOCs, most of which would produce creosote if condensed, are driven off the wood or any biomass.  Those same VOCs that are driven out of the ground wood or biomass is then collected and used to heat the biomass in the torrification process, saving fuel costs.  Torrified biomass may have a latent heat energy of 9 to 11,000 btus/lb, but it is also somewhat denser that wood pellets.  A 40 lb bag of torrified biomass pellets would be physically smaller than a 40 lb bag of wood pellets.  So a ton would occupy less space and each bag would have more energy than the wood pellets.  The pellet burner may increase in efficiency because less energy would be needed to "boil off" the water remaining in the wood pellets so more of the energy content would be available to produce heat from the stove.  Also, torrified biomass does not absorb water.  In some parts of the planet, companies that currently burn coal for heat or power are looking at mixing torrified biomass with coal because it is an inexpensive way to reduce emissions relative to burning coal alone.


----------



## bigruckus (Dec 6, 2011)

Yea..I live in Millinocket..the plant is going up around the spring time...hopefully we will see some of the first products of this new fuel very soon...they plan on hiring around 120-150 people. I will try to get some of this stuff and send it to anyone who wants to do some testing...I'll keep all of you posted..The company investors...called Cates also bought a paper mill in East Millinocket...and that employed 200 plus to work...things are good here in northern Maine


----------



## ifixmy2 (Dec 6, 2011)

Just my 2cents, but wouldn't the stove manufacturers have to test and certify that it could be used in their stoves?
I'm sure there would be legal issues and/or warranty clauses come up about using something that haven't been tested and approved?

I think I would take a back seat and let them (manufacturers) do the testing 1st.


----------



## nate379 (Dec 6, 2011)

Is Millinocket northern Maine?  
I grew up in Keegan, darn near can't get more north than that, but we always considered the top 1/2 or so of Aroostook to be northern Maine. Presque Isle, Caribou, Madawaska, Easton, Limestone, etc, etc.



			
				bigruckus said:
			
		

> Yea..I live in Millinocket..the plant is going up around the spring time...hopefully we will see some of the first products of this new fuel very soon...they plan on hiring around 120-150 people. I will try to get some of this stuff and send it to anyone who wants to do some testing...I'll keep all of you posted..The company investors...called Cates also bought a paper mill in East Millinocket...and that employed 200 plus to work...things are good here in northern Maine


----------



## bigruckus (Dec 6, 2011)

NATE379 said:
			
		

> Is Millinocket northern Maine?
> I grew up in Keegan, darn near can't get more north than that, but we always considered the top 1/2 or so of Aroostook to be northern Maine. Presque Isle, Caribou, Madawaska, Easton, Limestone, etc, etc.
> 
> 
> ...




Your right..I should of said central Maine...but then I would get comments from people around the Bangor area..LOL..Alaska...but pellets cost you well...wow must be nice and cold over there...I watch that dumb show Gold Rush...those people are all dreamers..hope Parker strikes it rich..if he doesn't his grandfather will take care of him!!


----------

