rschoensta wrote: I figure that for every 100lbs of coal I burn, I have 18lbs of ashes left over.
Which I think is not bad for a stoker.
Anybody else weigh their ashes?
And what are the results?
rschoensta wrote:The stove has been running at 100% during this time period.
I am guessing this is when it burns most efficiently.
This calculates out to 11.46% ash.
NEPAForum Admin wrote:As I've mentioned before a hand-fired unit always burns the coal up better than a stoker. I'm assuming it's because instead of being forced to burn it's just burning. I've used the very same coal from the very same load both in a stoker and hand fired unit. The stoker ash was its normal chunky consistency, the hand-fired ash on the other hand wasn't much more than powder.
It's not clear to me how much residential coal heating contributes to global warming compared to the other alternatives. For example over half of the US electricity is produced by burning bituminous coal. It's not a very efficient OVERALL process to turn back into heat. I'm trying to understand all the losses in making that electricity and getting it to the user. Looks like 1/3 of the energy in the coal is lost, lost heat at the power plant, transmission losses in the electric power grid, etc. Residential coal heat is a low temperature process. We are not making high pressure steam to drive a turbine. A much greater fraction on the energy in the coal gets used. It may turn out that from a global warming point of view, local residential Anthracite coal burning in an efficient boiler is desirable. I welcome analysis by others. This is an scientific analysis task the Anthracite producers and appliance manufacturers should jump on. Like I say, "Coal, back to the Future"stockingfull wrote:Even if my brother thinks I'm now responsible for global warming! :roll