Coal for Sale

At a price like that, you would think everyone would be stocking up with a 20 year supply. It isn't going to get any cheaper. So far, there hasn't been anyone who said they would buy more of this product.

I bought 12 Tons. The coal burns fine for me, I have no problem with it.

It burned just fine for me. If they had a high lift or if i coordinated one,and when they get thier sizing squared away, I will buy it.

Well, just finished the test run with my normal coal in the Keystoker. Back to 20% ash by weight. I get double the ash with the Newport Ag coal. No problems with it burning and the rocks just pass through my equipment. The high ash is just a little inconvenient.

I should have been weighing my ash on other samples of coal I burned previously as I feel the coal I bought 24 tons of produces a little more ash than previous coal. I will have to keep experimenting.

I am not discounting NA but if I have to truck it 300 miles, then I am trucking a lot more ash and that reduces the savings.

I am keeping my opinion of this product neutral right now. I may buy more of it but I will have to evaluate costs vs savings at that time.

I continued the testing described previously with a 50/50 blend of Newport and Jeddo. (71.4 lb ash + unburned)/ (278.4 lb coal) = 25.6% ash + unburned. The fire in this test had a smaller ash ring than in the earlier tests, so a little more unburned could be expected. Still, I had thought that might go down some with the addition of the Jeddo. The pics show how part of the ash is a fine powder, but part has a fair amount of unburned material that is fairly coarse.

I don't think the 25.6% is too far from being a reasonable total for ash + unburned - e.g., 9% ash + 10-15% unburned = 19-24% ash + unburned. However, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of coarse unburned material that has to be handled by the ash removal system in my stoker. So far, I'd be most comfortable with using this coal in a stoker without ash removal. It has a little more ash + unburned relative to other coals, but the difference may justified by the cost differential.

Mike

Hey Mike, I'm sort of confused. You took two coals that you tested for ash percent, mixed them together, and got a coal that has a higher ash content than either. What was the point???? You are looking for higher ash????

I was hoping that the Jeddo, which burned very well on its own, would help the Newport achieve a more complete burn, and cut down on the size and quantity of unburned pieces. If that happened, the blend would yield some savings without sacrificing too much quality. At least in this test, it looks like the blending may have messed up the quality of burn achieved by the Jeddo, pretty much defeating the purpose of the blending.

I should note that my blending process was pretty crude (alternating half cat litter pails dumped into a small feed bin). It's possible that a more uniform blend would provide a result more along the lines of what I was hoping for.

Mike

Soooo, with all these posts, I'm understanding that the Newport Coal is exactly what John explained it is.

freetown fred wrote:Soooo, with all these posts, I'm understanding that the Newport Coal is exactly what John explained it is.

I think John was being a little optimistic about his coal. You will save money burning it at the cost of $100 per ton but you have to realize it is equivelant to .7 to .8 tons of higher quality (and more expesive) coal.

The coal that was shown in the pictures posted looked much better than the coal I saw and purchased at NA.

I am sure the quality varies more than with breaker run coal as you get what comes out of the ground without processing. After all, the purpose of the breaker is to improve the quality and sizing of the coal.

If you can live with the inconsistant sizing and high ash, then it might be worth the savings.

There definitely will be people that will be unhappy with this coal. Others may think it is a great deal.

OK, then if you weren't happy with the coal you SAW, why'd ya buy it? John explained that they were in a stage of possibly upgrading equipment wise to solve sizing & quality problems but wanted to get a feel for demand. To compare this stuff to UAE or Blashak just seems silly to me--let's face it, the old--" you get what you pay for" still goes real far in my world. Just saying

I was a little disappointed in the results of my blending test because I thought that was supposed to be an effective way to address quality issues while still achieving significant savings. I would still consider using it if I didn't have the issue with ash removal, and probably will try it again whenever I get my "DHW boiler" project in gear.

Mike

freetown fred wrote:OK, then if you weren't happy with the coal you SAW, why'd ya buy it? John explained that they were in a stage of possibly upgrading equipment wise to solve sizing & quality problems but wanted to get a feel for demand. To compare this stuff to UAE or Blashak just seems silly to me--let's face it, the old--" you get what you pay for" still goes real far in my world. Just saying

Fred,

I didn't say I was happy or unhappy with the coal. I just said the stuff I say wasn't as good looking as the pictures seemed. Not much shiny stuff.

I bought it to try it. I don't like buying something that hasn't been rated, sight unseen, especially 24 tons of it.

I also needed some rice coal (which I could have gotten anywhere). But a casual trip into coal country with a few stops along the way gave me a nice weekend away with the wife.

Just trying to give some honest opinions and info without being to biased.

If NA improves the coal, great. If they don't, it still may be a good option for some, but there seem to be some rather fussy coal burners out there.

I don't think anybody is saying it has to be as good as a high quality coal, but the only way to compare is to compare against a know quality standard.

Bottom line for me is:
1. Does it burn without problems.
2. Dollars per million btu's. - After all factors considered.

If I burn more lower quality coal without problems but it costs a lot less and the dollars spent are less, then I will probably go with the lower quality coal.

PS - The rocks and clinkers could be a problem for some.

Gottcha

Rainy day...and time to blast all the 14 pages of emotion in two words: "it sucks!!!" I've been trying to get a new Smiley for "GFL", because here is a perfect example of the need for it.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, the SOB is a DUCK!! Any way you blend it, it still is a duck. If it is "YOUR DUCK", terrific. Nuff said!