Considering Coal? How to Equate Coal to Your Present Fuel

 
User avatar
2001Sierra
Member
Posts: 2211
Joined: Wed. May. 20, 2009 8:09 am
Location: Wynantskill NY, 10 miles from Albany
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Keystoker 90 Chimney vent
Coal Size/Type: Rice
Other Heating: Buderus Oil Boiler 3115-34

Post by 2001Sierra » Sun. Feb. 09, 2014 5:36 pm

1/3 of my original cost, stove room 8 degrees warmer than the house which would of been at the oil burning set point 68 degrees maybe :lol:

My year total coal costs are approaching what folks are paying for 1 tank of oil in my neighborhood, very similar homes :o


 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13761
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Feb. 09, 2014 6:32 pm

Rigar wrote:...btw-
is oil really a solid fuel??? :D
You didn't mention oil in your post nor did you answer the question.

 
User avatar
Scottscoaled
Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue. Jan. 08, 2008 9:51 pm
Location: Malta N.Y.
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520, 700, Van Wert 800 GJ 61,53
Baseburners & Antiques: Magic Stewart 16, times 2!
Coal Size/Type: Lots of buck
Other Heating: Slant Fin electric boiler backup

Post by Scottscoaled » Sun. Feb. 09, 2014 6:41 pm

wsherrick wrote:All of this stuff was exhaustively researched over a Century ago. I guess it's a good thing that there are people who want to reinvent the wheel, because; the first wheel inventing has been forgotten or the results found then are refused to be believed.
I think it is a little bit of both.
It was found that base burners are much more efficient than boilers or furnaces,
The average base burner efficiency was found to be around 80%. That's not the high end, that's the average.
The average coal stove of any kind was found to be in the 70% range.
Boilers and hot air furnaces were in the 50 to 60 percent range.
I know it is hard for the lovers of gadgets and the tinkerers to accept it, but; that's the way it is. There's always room for gadget hounds and their endless fascination with auxiliary gizmos.
I'm not knocking it. Everybody needs a hobby.
I or franco or anybody else can put up stuff all day about the obvious efficiency of these old stoves and it still won't be believed or accepted by the gizmo groupies. I've long since discovered this and so be it.
To each his own.
Well, as far as I know, they didn't extensively research my boiler 100 years ago. It is a 1987 model. While it might not be 87% as was SUGGESTED by the manual, I do find it to be extremely economical to operate compared to other boilers I have ran or set up.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13761
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Sun. Feb. 09, 2014 6:50 pm

Scottscoaled wrote:Well, as far as I know, they didn't extensively research my boiler 100 years ago. It is a 1987 model. While it might not be 87% as was SUGGESTED by the manual, I do find it to be extremely economical to operate compared to other boilers I have ran or set up.
Your Van Wert should operate in the 80% range give or take a few.

 
Rigar
Member
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue. Dec. 04, 2012 6:30 am
Location: central new york (syracuse area)
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Keystoker A 150
Coal Size/Type: anthracite rice

Post by Rigar » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 7:33 am

coaledsweat wrote:
Rigar wrote:...btw-
is oil really a solid fuel??? :D
You didn't mention oil in your post nor did you answer the question.
... okay I will try again.... and I will be typing very slowly because you are not a fast reader...
I did not feel the need to mention oil in my post is this entire thread is based on comparing ALL methods of fuel..(check out the ORIGINAL post by Larry)
...solid AND liquid fuels are compared..
Secondly...gas and propane appliances do work in the same 'fashion'... to the extent that both provide heat to your home...
the biggest difference ( compared to solid fuel burners) is and how they cycle...
they are either on or off.... with most newer ones modulating... as opposed to solid fuel... which needs to burn constantly( even if only a small 'timed' burn.... to maintain a fire....which may take its toll on its "efficiency"... depending onrequired load.....
hope that was clear enough for ya :D

 
User avatar
Carbon12
Member
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue. Oct. 11, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Coal Size/Type: Rice/Anthracite
Other Heating: Heat Pump/Forced Hot Air Oil Furnace

Post by Carbon12 » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 7:50 am

Back in my oil company days, during really cold weather, I saw a lot of outside oil tanks that had gummed up to a point that the oil was nearly solid :lol:

 
User avatar
Flyer5
Member
Posts: 10376
Joined: Sun. Oct. 21, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Montrose PA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer
Contact:

Post by Flyer5 » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 9:00 am

Carbon12 wrote:Back in my oil company days, during really cold weather, I saw a lot of outside oil tanks that had gummed up to a point that the oil was nearly solid :lol:
Living up to the avatar. :lol:


 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13761
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 12:06 pm

Rigar, your insults don't bother me. Admitting I was right was a step in the right direction. Now why don't you tell the members how this affects efficiency?

 
User avatar
lsayre
Member
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed. Nov. 23, 2005 9:17 pm
Location: Ohio
Stoker Coal Boiler: AHS S130 Coal Gun
Coal Size/Type: Lehigh Anthracite Pea
Other Heating: Resistance Boiler (13.5 KW), ComfortMax 75

Post by lsayre » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 12:50 pm

I'm still trying to figure out how a rudimentary fuel equivalency post that was intended to be helpful ended up being an all out Donnybrook slug-fest over efficiencies. :shock: :o

 
kstills
Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue. Jan. 18, 2011 6:41 am
Location: New Britain, PA
Stoker Coal Boiler: WL 110

Post by kstills » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 1:34 pm

lsayre wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how a rudimentary fuel equivalency post that was intended to be helpful ended up being an all out Donnybrook slug-fest over efficiencies. :shock: :o
:lol:

I was wondering that myself. :)

 
Rigar
Member
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue. Dec. 04, 2012 6:30 am
Location: central new york (syracuse area)
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Keystoker A 150
Coal Size/Type: anthracite rice

Post by Rigar » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 1:50 pm

coaledsweat wrote:Rigar, your insults don't bother me. Admitting I was right was a step in the right direction. Now why don't you tell the members how this affects efficiency?
this is going in the opposite direction the OP was considering (IMO)
...With all due respect...i wasnt the one that suggested a coal burning stove with 80+ percent effeciency would have stack temps near room temperature....
i merely demonstrated how even highly efficient appliances (albiet NG or propane) can have relatively high temp exhaust gases
....I ''ll apologize to all members now for goin off topic...
however....I'll never admit you were right....because you werent.

Kuddos to Larry for the time spent on a very wortwhile comparison! :clap: :clap:

 
User avatar
windyhill4.2
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Fri. Nov. 22, 2013 2:17 pm
Location: Jonestown,Pa.17038
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1960 EFM520 installed in truck box
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404 with variable blower
Coal Size/Type: 404-nut, 520 rice ,anthracite for both

Post by windyhill4.2 » Mon. Feb. 10, 2014 2:26 pm

TOPIC ALERT!! Back to the topic.... Considering coal? Yes,we are considering coal !! Coal vs.present fuel,.... Wood ,lots of wood ,but going to coal for fuel probably won't change the $$ spent by much. The BIG change will be the work load ... wood = LOTS & LOTS of work,hard work,coal,... much less work ,will depend on what set up we go with. How much wood ? .. 1 cord a week average since mid October 2013 ,highest usage was 1/2 cord in 24 hr period Jan. 7, 2014 , 8 * with 30+mph winds. At that 1 cord/wk avg. we should be at 1/2 ton of coal/wk ,maybe a bit less due to the better efficiency of the coal boiler vs outdoor wood burner.Now, that is the way I see it with my simple mind,you guys with your scientific brains fight over the most complex % of things like your life depended on it.It will be interesting to see what you can come up with on this. Hope I stayed close enough to topic ,OH & SMILE ,it won't hurt you :!: :)

 
User avatar
Horace
Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu. Sep. 18, 2008 12:15 pm
Location: Central PA
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Harman ST8-VF8 / Frankenstove

Post by Horace » Wed. Feb. 12, 2014 11:33 am

Larry:

Thanks for coming up with this. I'm looking at a house that burns oil in a boiler. Of course, I want to replace it with coal, but wanted to get a general idea of what it would cost to heat with coal. I called the oil company and got the gallons delivered from them. Using your chart, I can calculate the coal equivalent.

$5,005 vs $2060

That number gets better is the oil boiler is less efficient than what I used, and the coal boiler is more efficient than 75%. But, this gives me a great start.

Thanks!

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17965
Joined: Fri. Dec. 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Chazy, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Jr

Post by Rob R. » Wed. Feb. 12, 2014 12:55 pm

I have installed stoker boilers in a few houses that were heated with modern oil boilers...as a general rule, the previous fuel oil consumption compared to coal consumption came out pretty close to 180 gallons of fuel to 1 ton of anthracite coal. That is heating the same square footage to the same temperature as before...and with a warmer basement due to radiant heat off the boiler. Many people keep their house warmer when burning coal, so your mileage may vary.
Horace wrote:That number gets better is the oil boiler is less efficient than what I used, and the coal boiler is more efficient than 75%. But, this gives me a great start.
Good observation. The less efficient the current oil unit is, the more you stand to save by installing a stoker boiler.

 
User avatar
Carbon12
Member
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue. Oct. 11, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Coal Size/Type: Rice/Anthracite
Other Heating: Heat Pump/Forced Hot Air Oil Furnace

Post by Carbon12 » Wed. Feb. 12, 2014 1:59 pm

Yup, I'm pretty even with burning 1 ton of coal for every degree day scheduled automatic oil delivery previously,......Plus, I'm making DHW with the coal. Had been electric hot water heater before with oil for heat only.


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”