Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To clarify DCforever when you are making cost comparisons. Example od other considerations is the coal may cost guido more where he lives but the storage space is about 1/3 and it's a hell a lot easier to use than wood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Safety, ease of use, flexibility, availability...
Safety -I can easily argue coal is the safest form of fuel to use. It doesn't leak, it doesn't explode, it won't cause a chimney fire and while an electric fire is possible it would be confined to an area unlikely to cause any issues. If your house burns to the ground you are going to find a pile a coal in the rubble.
The only real safety concern with coal is CO which is an issue with any heating appliance that burns something. It's of particular concern with the coal because a light gray fly ash will settle in the flue pipe and the bottom of the chimney. This needs to be periodically cleaned out or it will eventually block the flue. Most people only need to do this once a year and will do it in the Spring. I have a larger boiler with a large flue pipe, while I could probably let it go for 2 or 3 years I do it annually. If you are seasonal user you need to remove the flue pipes anyway, it's recommended you wash the inside with solution of baking powder and water to neutralize the acids to extend their life. If you wanted to do this mid season or a year round user you install T's on the flue pipe instead of elbows and cap the the one end of the T. You can use a shop vac to suck the ash out whenever you want.
Ease of use - Obviously when comparing to oil, natural gas or electric it's not as easy as turning a dial but most people that are looking at coal or different fuels are considering what it is costing them for that convenience. If you live in an area with frequent or prolonged power outages that ease of use goes out the window compared to hand fed stove boiler or stove.
Compared to wood there is no comparison, hand fed stoves are extremely easy to operate especially considering their prolonged burn time. Most people are on a 12 hour schedule of filling them, no getting up at 5AM to put fuel on the fire. Automated stokers are as easy to use as any conventional heating system with the exception of putting coal in one end and taking ashes out of the other. Typical burn time for them during cold weather might be two days. We use ours year round because it also provides domestic hot water, it has to be attended to about once every 5 days. Savings on fuel costs are minimal for summer usage but this is more of maintenance issue. Burning it year round will extend the life of a coal boiler 2 or 3 decades. People typically only buy the higher end boilers once, well maintained it will outlast you even if you buy it in your 20's.
Flexibility - I'm not sure what you mean by this but any possible heating application you can think of is available for coal. Antique stoves complete with oven and side burners utilizing gas in the summer, is that what you are looking for? Decorative Fireplace inserts, domestic hot water options, automated boilers, hand fed boilers, hot air furnaces, small stoves, big stoves, coal/wood combos... it's an endless list and other than the dedicated cooking stove all can be purchased new.
Availability - If you live outside of the Northeast US availability and cost becomes an issue for anthracite. There was a very interesting request this past, the guy wanted a pallet delivered to California. Apparently he was on boat in the bay area that had a coal stove, some of the prices he was quoting for energy at the dock were outrageous. He got his pallet, $250 for the coal and something like $300 in shipping.
Depends on the model, older are sourced heat pumps are only good to about 40 or so but newer ones are effective into the teens.
Right, I thought I had previously said they were okay for more mild winters.
If it is going to stay in the teens you really do not need much heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Safety, ease of use, flexibility, availability and environmental impact are all important. That's why electricity and natural gas are the dominant sources of residential energy.
If you were using electric heat, what happens when the grid goes down each week? I do not see that as a reliable heat source. We went to solar power for our home, because we wanted a more reliable source of electricity. But I do not generate enough power with Photovoltaic to heat our home.
I think that the predominant source of heating fuel in our nearest city remains as oil.
Out where I live it is a mixture of oil and wood, some homes use one, other homes use the other. I can not say if there is any clear predominance here what home owners select to use for heating fuel.
To clarify DCforever when you are making cost comparisons. Example od other considerations is the coal may cost guido more where he lives but the storage space is about 1/3 and it's a hell a lot easier to use than wood.
Safety -I can easily argue coal is the safest form of fuel to use. It doesn't leak, it doesn't explode, it won't cause a chimney fire and while an electric fire is possible it would be confined to an area unlikely to cause any issues. If your house burns to the ground you are going to find a pile a coal in the rubble.
The only real safety concern with coal is CO which is an issue with any heating appliance that burns something. It's of particular concern with the coal because a light gray fly ash will settle in the flue pipe and the bottom of the chimney. This needs to be periodically cleaned out or it will eventually block the flue. Most people only need to do this once a year and will do it in the Spring. I have a larger boiler with a large flue pipe, while I could probably let it go for 2 or 3 years I do it annually. If you are seasonal user you need to remove the flue pipes anyway, it's recommended you wash the inside with solution of baking powder and water to neutralize the acids to extend their life. If you wanted to do this mid season or a year round user you install T's on the flue pipe instead of elbows and cap the the one end of the T. You can use a shop vac to suck the ash out whenever you want.
Ease of use - Obviously when comparing to oil, natural gas or electric it's not as easy as turning a dial but most people that are looking at coal or different fuels are considering what it is costing them for that convenience. If you live in an area with frequent or prolonged power outages that ease of use goes out the window compared to hand fed stove boiler or stove.
Compared to wood there is no comparison, hand fed stoves are extremely easy to operate especially considering their prolonged burn time. Most people are on a 12 hour schedule of filling them, no getting up at 5AM to put fuel on the fire. Automated stokers are as easy to use as any conventional heating system with the exception of putting coal in one end and taking ashes out of the other. Typical burn time for them during cold weather might be two days. We use ours year round because it also provides domestic hot water, it has to be attended to about once every 5 days. Savings on fuel costs are minimal for summer usage but this is more of maintenance issue. Burning it year round will extend the life of a coal boiler 2 or 3 decades. People typically only buy the higher end boilers once, well maintained it will outlast you even if you buy it in your 20's.
Flexibility - I'm not sure what you mean by this but any possible heating application you can think of is available for coal. Antique stoves complete with oven and side burners utilizing gas in the summer, is that what you are looking for? Decorative Fireplace inserts, domestic hot water options, automated boilers, hand fed boilers, hot air furnaces, small stoves, big stoves, coal/wood combos... it's an endless list and other than the dedicated cooking stove all can be purchased new.
Availability - If you live outside of the Northeast US availability and cost becomes an issue for anthracite. There was a very interesting request this past, the guy wanted a pallet delivered to California. Apparently he was on boat in the bay area that had a coal stove, some of the prices he was quoting for energy at the dock were outrageous. He got his pallet, $250 for the coal and something like $300 in shipping.
We owned a home in Scotland in the 1980s, that we heated burning peat/coal. Our Scottish home had fireplaces/grates made specifically for peat/coal heat, we had to place each piece of coal on the grate with tongs.
When we settled into our home here in New England, we tried heating with coal for 3 years. At that time I got into a discussion with you, to learn how to make it work. I was able to locate a coal retailer at a truckstop 30 miles away, so I did not have to pay any extra shipping fees, per pallet so long as I went there and got it myself.
We were never able to master the art of shaking-down and banking and coals to get them to burn through the night, allowing it to be re-loaded in the mornings. As a result it always died by morning, so I had to clean it all out and re-start the fire each day. After 3 years we went back to wood stoves.
Wood is local, unlike coal it does not have to be shipped in from out-of-state.
If you were using electric heat, what happens when the grid goes down each week? I do not see that as a reliable heat source. We went to solar power for our home, because we wanted a more reliable source of electricity. But I do not generate enough power with Photovoltaic to heat our home.
I think that the predominant source of heating fuel in our nearest city remains as oil.
Out where I live it is a mixture of oil and wood, some homes use one, other homes use the other. I can not say if there is any clear predominance here what home owners select to use for heating fuel.
For most of the country electricity reliability is six 9s.
Oil as a heating source is very regional -- northeast and declining
The heating habits of 1% isn't what I was discussing. Where available natural gas predominates, then comes electricity, propane and way down the list oil. Coal isn't even an asterisk.
We were never able to master the art of shaking-down and banking and coals to get them to burn through the night, allowing it to be re-loaded in the mornings. As a result it always died by morning,....
If you can't get at least 12 hours out of coal a coal stove you were either doing something wrong, it's not a very good stove or it's not very good coal. Some of these larger stoves you can get 2 day burns from them, not a lot of heat but they will last that long.
Cadet heaters were the nightmare reason I had mini split installed. They suck. Noise, very inefficient and very expensive to run.
But that's not why I'm circled back here. I finally asked my boy how much he pays for electricity. His ADU has electric heater - he showers for like 40 min each time - then he does his own laundry, cooks, runs refrigerator, lights, computers and TV, garage doors run up down plus, ADU is connected to our chicken farm, so all lights there go on his electric bill. Winter - our PacNW winter - he pays between 55 and 65 $$ electricity bill. That's the power of mini splits. And he keeps it at 70 inside.
Me, onm the other hand, with 5 ton Trane heat pump, just paid $262 electric bill.
Do you have a link for that graph? I'd be interested in reading what they used to compile the data.
One of the issues is data on this is going to be inaccurate. A "small" 90K BTU coal stove or stoker can shoulder almost all of the heating demands for a 2000 sq. ft. home except during really cold weather. In homes like this their "primary" heating system may be listed as gas, electric or whatever.
Most people that install coal heating expect to use it as supplementary heat but quickly find it's filling the role as their primary heat. Tandem installs for both boilers and ducted furnaces are pretty common.
I myself do not know of any reliable data, best guess based on production numbers and my intimate knowledge of what the average household uses is that up to 1 million homes heat with coal. That's not a huge number bt it's not chump change either.
Do you have a link for that graph? I'd be interested in reading what they used to compile the data.
One of the issues is data on this is going to be inaccurate. A "small" 90K BTU coal stove or stoker can shoulder almost all of the heating demands for a 2000 sq. ft. home except during really cold weather. In homes like this their "primary" heating system may be listed as gas, electric or whatever.
Most people that install coal heating expect to use it as supplementary heat but quickly find it's filling the role as their primary heat. Tandem installs for both boilers and ducted furnaces are pretty common.
I myself do not know of any reliable data, best guess based on production numbers and my intimate knowledge of what the average household uses is that up to 1 million homes heat with coal. That's not a huge number bt it's not chump change either.
For some things there simply is no collected data.
Like trying to track off-grid solar installations. The Power Companies track the grid-tied net-metering installations and using that data they commonly present lots charts to make claims about solar power. But they have no idea how many solar power installations exist. They only know about the installations that they have contracts and accounts for.
I attend a lot of solar power workshops and state legislature events, in a community where 3/4 of solar power is off-grid.
The Power Companies like to try to present information as if grid-tied were the predominant use of solar power.
Do you have a link for that graph? I'd be interested in reading what they used to compile the data.
One of the issues is data on this is going to be inaccurate. A "small" 90K BTU coal stove or stoker can shoulder almost all of the heating demands for a 2000 sq. ft. home except during really cold weather. In homes like this their "primary" heating system may be listed as gas, electric or whatever.
Most people that install coal heating expect to use it as supplementary heat but quickly find it's filling the role as their primary heat. Tandem installs for both boilers and ducted furnaces are pretty common.
I myself do not know of any reliable data, best guess based on production numbers and my intimate knowledge of what the average household uses is that up to 1 million homes heat with coal. That's not a huge number bt it's not chump change either.
Firstly I'd have to wonder how many people are going to take the time to fill that out? It's very lengthy. If I asked the people on my forum if they would fill it out most of them are going to answer no especially when they find out there is no option for the fuel they use.
For example go to the very end, I get coal delivered as do most other people. There is no option for coal at all.
I realize coal is going to be at the end list but even if we set aside the issues about whom is filling it how are you supposed to have any data that is even remotely accurate about coal with a survey like this? ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
