I don't know why some of you are strongly against multi fuel systems. Maybe they are not as efficient as coal only boilers, but is taking a slight hit in efficiency for the flexibility of multi fuel that bad of a decision?
Because I've already tried it. Here is a picture of my old boiler:
It was a boiler made to burn wood or coal. When burning wood, if the boiler was working hard the stack temperature on the boiler was about 800 degrees - if it was not working hard, it made a ton of creosote. 12-15 full cords per winter, and we still burned heating oil in October and April!! (to avoid creosote from the idling boiler). Burning coal was a much better experience than wood thanks to the long burn times, and no creosote. I still struggled in cold weather though, the firebox design in this boiler was shaped like a 'V', and when fired hard it would produce massive clinkers. It was also a pain to get the ash cleared correctly, and it would overheat the house on warm days. I think there a hand-fed boilers that do a better job at burning coal than the one I used, but I can tell you that any hand-fed boiler that burns coal well is going to suck at burning wood. That DS Machine boiler is a good example, more than one person has stated on this forum that they have terrible creosote problems when burning wood in that unit. If you REALLY want to burn wood and want to do it well, get a gassification boiler.
Just in case you are curious what I use now that the smoke dragon is gone:
7 tons of rice coal per winter...with no heating oil, no midnight reloads, no creosote, no bugs, and no smoke complaints.