Popular Mechanics article about Pellet stoves.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/im ... or-heating

Not a word was mentioned about coal nor was coal used in the "fuel cost comparison chart".

I'm still searching for the email address where I can reach the writer, Logan Ward.

I understand that this article is about "renewable" fuels, but why talk about NG, Oil, Electric, Propane and yet not mention coal?

Mark

EarthWindandFire wrote:I understand that this article is about "renewable" fuels, but why talk about NG, Oil, Electric, Propane and yet not mention coal?

If coal was included, the article would have had to been about coal, not pellet stoves.

Just my opinion. What made me look at a differnt fuel many years ago, well before changing and captured my attention was the word ANTHRACITE. Looks more clean than coal and can open more doors than coal. When someone talks about coal, us, the pros of anthracite must make the things clear. Do we burn anthracite or not?
nortcan

The listing for electric is wrong. They list it as "electric heat pump" which would indicate air or ground sourced heat pump but are giving numbers for electric element heat. Those are wrong too because electric element heat is 100% efficient.

You mileage will vary on a heat pump is going to vary according to the climate especially with air sourced heat pump but you could use 1/3 the electric in milder climate or 300% efficiency compared to standard electric element.

The writer of that article is Logan Ward and from what I can tell, he is a straight up guy. However, it seems that he has no life experience with coal whatsoever.

Here is a link to a book he wrote: http://www.amazon.com/See-You-Hundred-Y ... bookb03-20

I think Logan could use some education about coal and I hope that some of us will take the time to contact him and explain in a respectful manner the benefits of coal.

Mark

Hi Dave,

I'm glad to hear that you received a reply. Logan does seem open-minded and passionate about what he does.

Thanks for taking the time to write him.

Mark

Yes, coal should have been included in the cost comparisons but unless "clean coal technology" can be fitted into a mass media article. coal will be ignored. Coal is perceived to be a regressive fuel and not part of the future.

From a narrow perspective, not sure why anybody heating with coal would want to see publicity regarding coal. It will only raise costs as supply and demand ratios shift.

From a wider point-of-view, one could argue that increased demand will eventually lower the extraction and shipping costs. Particularly the shipping as it might start rail delivery to out lying areas and bring back some of the coal yards that disappeared fifty years ago. It would also help a few companies making coal fired domestic heaters and very slightly reduce the demand for imported petro fuels. These beneficial effects would take years and need an exponential rise in domestic coal demand. This seems unlikely. The EPA would be all over any re-conversion to heating coal. Moreover, there are not that many homeowners willing to do the chores involved in burning coal. I suppose attitudes could change if we ever see an unlikely $10 per gallon oil and a similar rise in natgas.