Fuel Comparison Calc. ?'s.

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6003
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 11:01 am

When you click on the link to the fuel comparison calculator...

...are the default values set that way as averages? I realize I can change the costs to what is local to me, but I'm specifically referring to the efficiencies listed...more specifically to the coal stoves since I have no idea how efficient the particular stoves I'm looking to buy are...Warm Morning's stoves, Glenwood #6 or similar, and Modern Hitzer, Harmon, types...let alone how to adjust for each stove's efficiency vs. my #2 oil burner...of which I need to find out the same info for it.

From October to present (1-18-18) we've used 311gallons of fuel oil (and winter isn't over) at an average cost of $2.6633 a gallon for a total of $827.75 (and climbing).

That's just keeping the house tolerable at 65F...by that I mean it gets much too hot in our bedrooms if the living room is any hotter...and that's with keeping the registers closed already.

At TSC around here Anthracite is $304 a ton, so far without knowing the efficiency percentage of my oil burner and not knowing the same of the stoves I'm considering, I'm not yet seeing the advantages, other than consistent heat flow without temperature swings, of using anthracite. I do believe I may be missing something though.


 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 11:22 am

Eleven to twelve pounds of anthracite equals the heat output of a gallon of oil.

311 gallons of oil multiplied by 12 = 3732 pounds of coal. Using 11 gives less coal.

At $304 per ton of coal, the price per pound is .152 per pound.

3732 pounds at .152 = $567 cost of coal for equivalent heat. Less if you use the 11 pound figure. The particular stove and how it is operated accounts for the difference.

I do think that the better coal stoves and stokers will match the efficiency of the average oil burner.

 
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 » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 3:22 pm

What really throws my mind for a loop is that many folks will freeze themselves to death with oil or electric or propain ,but when they switch to coal,they decide to keep themselves warm in their house.....

Then they do mathamagical numbers & complain that coal costs them just as much or more than what they used b4 :what:

My choice yrs ago was made easy by some simple facts.....
#1- I don't use fuels that can easily go > BOOM..... So.... xx propain & natural gas
#2- I don't use fuels where i am totally at the vender's mercy for the supply needed on high demand days..... xx natural gas & electric
#3- I don't use fuels that primarily come from those who hate me & my country.... xx oil

As you can see, my fuel comparison calculator is based on elementary math... it is as easy as 1,2,3...

That leaves me with just 2 choices...

#1- Wood... that used to work,but now at my age,it is just too much work.
#2- Coal... Not much work, I can assure myself a good supply of heat on high demand days by simply stocking a sufficient amount to get thru the highest demand season.

Now... b4 anyone posts nasty things about my fuel comparison calculator...... :roll:

I am fully aware that this easy method will not work for those who like doing things the complicated way.. :what:

I'll watch to see if the mathamagical calculations arrive at the same place as my simple 1,2,3, method does. :)

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25559
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 4:25 pm

My math works out the same, Dave. ;)

Maybe those that complain are using that new, "cold core" math ? :lol:

Paul

 
User avatar
Lightning
Site Moderator
Posts: 14659
Joined: Wed. Nov. 16, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Olean, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: Modified AA 130
Coal Size/Type: Pea Size - Anthracite

Post by Lightning » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 4:48 pm

windyhill4.2 wrote:
Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 3:22 pm
Then they do mathamagical numbers & complain that coal costs them just as much or more than what they used b4
I used to cringe every time I heard the thermostat click (set at 68) when I had propane. Now I smile when I hear that same click set at 74 and still save a ton of money.

Point being, even if the OP used just as much coal cost wise as oil, at least he'd be warm...... Now THAT is somethin to chew on.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 5:48 pm

As far as efficiency, only the well known heavyweight coal boilers are going to run at 80%. Stoves would run in the 65%, maybe 70% range.

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6003
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:28 pm

Windy, I like that math and that's why I'm asking about this...my goal is to switch from oil primary heating to coal as my primary heat, wood as my back-up, and oil as plan Z...I too hate being tide to a grid and then also lining the pockets of those that wish to destroy us and our way of life.

Part of my issue with replacing the oil burner totally is that it's a down draft furnace. The main part of the house is on a crawl space and then my grandpa added 2 rooms later on a concrete slab...the furnace sits in a closet between the two rooms...sits over a hole in the concrete floor where the heat is then blown down through the floor, with registers (2) in each of those two bedrooms on the slab, and through the main register feed through the crawl space to be distributed throughout the rest of the house. If any of that makes sense. I'm not aware of any wood or coal furnaces of this type...then there's clearance issues that have to be considered even if I could find a wood or coal burner to fit in that furnace room. It's easier, at least at the moment, to just leave well enough alone and leave the oil burner in place...if nothing else but to be able to offer heating options for a potential buyer should we ever sell. Now, if the furnace needed replacing, then that would be the opportune time to research coal or wood burners to fit that furnace room. It would make a great closet space for winter coats if we could simply turn it into a closet, but that would require leaving or tearing out a chimney...and I just put a new roof on...so that's not an option. Furnace replacement when the time comes makes sense. Keep in mind, we have a separate chimney for wood or coal and a hearth for such.

coaledsweat wrote:
Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 5:48 pm
As far as efficiency, only the well known heavyweight coal boilers are going to run at 80%. Stoves would run in the 65%, maybe 70% range.
Now that strikes me as being odd condsidering efficiencies of modern wood stoves with secondary air tubes, tertiary, and combusters of which I'm not too hip on yet. I would think there would be some real efficient coal stoves.

I know William likes his Glenwood #6, but I have no idea how these compare to modern coal stoves in the real world. IIRC he claims they're super efficient...but I don't recall him mentioning numbers or comparing them to modern coal stoves. Perhaps he has offered comparisons and I missed it.

So no one misunderstand me...I'm more or less just wanting to know where I stand at the moment with my oil burner in comparison. The way I figure it now it looks like my total usage for oil will be around 480 gallons and about $1500 for a year...that's a rough guestimate at the moment and given this cold winter. I'm just trying to figure what I'd need to budget for another winter like this. Keep in mind we moved in September. So, once this winter is over I'll know exactly what a year's worth of oil burning in a winter like this will cost me, and then I'll think I'll be able to make a more accurate comparison to coal and wood.

franco,
That first sentence was very helpful.


 
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 » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:42 pm

Simple would be a big coal stove & then if the heat doesn't move around enough,use fans.... or,run the oil furnace intermittently to circulate the heat from the coal stove.
$$ required would not be very many.

Less simple...
Make the furnace room bigger,install a coal stoker boiler,install a hot water to hot air exchanger & blow the heat into the existing ductwork.
$$ required would be more than just a few.

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6003
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:49 pm

franco b wrote:
Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 11:22 am
Eleven to twelve pounds of anthracite equals the heat output of a gallon of oil.

311 gallons of oil multiplied by 12 = 3732 pounds of coal. Using 11 gives less coal.

At $304 per ton of coal, the price per pound is .152 per pound.

3732 pounds at .152 = $567 cost of coal for equivalent heat. Less if you use the 11 pound figure. The particular stove and how it is operated accounts for the difference.

I do think that the better coal stoves and stokers will match the efficiency of the average oil burner.
If my math is correct and using the 480 gallons used for the year the cost of coal would be only $875 instead of the $1500 I'm heading to. That's a $600-$800 savings by switching to coal even at $304 a ton. That'll help pay for a stove in a short time.

11~12 lb.s of coal cost $1.83 vs. $2.66 for the gallon of oil. Pretty proud of my 11 year old for figuring that part out and helping dear ol' dad.

 
Hoytman
Member
Posts: 6003
Joined: Wed. Jan. 18, 2017 11:30 pm
Location: swOH near a little town where the homes are mobile and the cars aren’t
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 354
Coal Size/Type: nut coal
Other Heating: electric, wood, oil

Post by Hoytman » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:51 pm

windyhill4.2 wrote:
Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:42 pm
Simple would be a big coal stove & then if the heat doesn't move around enough,use fans.... or,run the oil furnace intermittently to circulate the heat from the coal stove.
$$ required would not be very many.

That's exactly what I've been thinking of doing.

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 8:33 pm

Hoytman wrote:
Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 7:28 pm
Now that strikes me as being odd condsidering efficiencies of modern wood stoves with secondary air tubes, tertiary, and combusters of which I'm not too hip on yet. I would think there would be some real efficient coal stoves.
Efficiency ratings in lab are like a political piece in the New York Times. They have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Thu. Jan. 18, 2018 10:30 pm

We are about at the halfway point in fuel usage, so figure on double what you have already burned as a total for the year.

Keep an automatic heating system even if supplementary to the main system. Insurance companies and bank mortgage departments want it and in case of sickness it can be needed. Selling a house without it can be difficult as well.

From the description your house seems to be difficult to distribute the heat from a single source.

 
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 » Fri. Jan. 19, 2018 5:04 am

I would assume that in the real world a coal stove will easily be on the order of 20% less efficient than a modern fuel oil #2 furnace or boiler.

$1.83 x 1.20 = $2.20

So it is $2.20 vs $2.66

 
franco b
Site Moderator
Posts: 11416
Joined: Wed. Nov. 05, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Kent CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Post by franco b » Fri. Jan. 19, 2018 9:57 am

lsayre wrote:
Fri. Jan. 19, 2018 5:04 am
I would assume that in the real world a coal stove will easily be on the order of 20% less efficient than a modern fuel oil #2 furnace or boiler.

$1.83 x 1.20 = $2.20

So it is $2.20 vs $2.66
That is counter to the experience of many of our members who have not only lowered heating costs but keep the temperature higher as well.

Though modern oil burners are very much superior to older types, the same can not be said of boilers and furnaces. The trend to make them ever smaller has hurt heat exchange. The cheap vertical tube boilers so common have high stack temperatures. Firing rates are set for the extremes of cold, leading to shortened run times most of the year, and consequent loss of efficiency. Even the superiority of the burners has been compromised by less than ideal combustion chambers in many cases. A steady state efficiency measurement does not reflect real world use in the modern oil appliance, while the coal appliance better matches that condition.

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Fri. Jan. 19, 2018 10:31 am

Well reasoned franco.

I know I have a lot going for me. I buy in bulk. Reasonably near to PA and I buy really good stoves. I am no isayre but I do keep records going back 23 years. The first 13 years on oil and the rest on ever improving coal technique.. Many, many variables which I can't be bothered to quantify but heating the farm with oil heat cost me about three times the average cost of coal heat. That is near enough for me. The rest entertains and informs me but I aint changing. Sometimes you do not need to know the details. Did I mention nothing beats or even comes close to radiant heat ... oh well, I don't want to start a war this morning so we will leave it at that. Would I pay a premium for coal heat ... yes ... how much? ... don't know.


Post Reply

Return to “Hand Fired Coal Stoves & Furnaces Using Anthracite”