Efficiency of a Stoker Stove Vs. a Hand Fired Stove

 
ad356
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat. Sep. 21, 2013 7:07 am
Location: north java, ny

Post by ad356 » Fri. Nov. 03, 2017 10:14 pm

i heat with a keystoker 90K and im quite happy with it. im just curious how does nut coal compare to rice coal? are the burn rates about the same? heat output about the same? i like the rice coal stove because it operates allot like a pellet stove just far more efficient, economical, and much better heat output. a thermostatically controlled rice coal stove is so easy even the wife can run it, and she has..... ran it 8 weeks when i was gone over the road. i have a CDL and when i first got it, i went over the road for a brief stint. i decided that lifestyle sucks and do what i can to stay driving locally.


 
User avatar
Hambden Bob
Member
Posts: 8535
Joined: Mon. Jan. 04, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Hambden Twp. Geauga County,Ohio
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Harman 1998 Magnum Stoker
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Blower Model Coal Chubby 1982-Serial#0097
Coal Size/Type: Rice-A-Roni ! / Nut
Other Heating: Pro-Pain Forced Air

Post by Hambden Bob » Fri. Nov. 03, 2017 10:35 pm

Two different Animals to be sure,Ad ! Rice feeds a Stoker like You've got,along with the generally convenient(per Your situation) automated controls,temp controlled firing/feed rate,etc.

'Der Nut Coal is used in the Hand Fired Manual Operated Heat Monsters(aka "Hand Feds") You feed it,and fly it,including underfed air controls,outlet damper,etc. Handfeds require zero power,although many have an additional,optional blower if You want to push the heat around instead of radiate it. We've got Huge Fans of Both !

For Your particular situation,until You've got Half a Prayer of being Home to take care of the stove,I'd stay with what You've got...... Don't disappoint the Mrs... !

 
ad356
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat. Sep. 21, 2013 7:07 am
Location: north java, ny

Post by ad356 » Fri. Nov. 03, 2017 10:55 pm

i like what i have, its pretty automated. fill the hopper, empty the ashes, set the thermostat and forget it..... i think its a great system.... the only thing better would be a boiler i think, which takes allot more money to setup. i bought a good running used 90K stove for $750. a little paint, black pipe, hook up to an old existing chimney and off you go. i actually have natural gas on this property but NO WAY am i going to heat an old 1,500 sq ft farm house for $6-700 per year...... i really need some storm doors and i could reduce it even more. national fuel can suck it. i hate utility companies, they are thieves with their multiple delivery charges and weather adjustment fees. coal has been the most price stable commodity in the time i have heated with it.

besides the keystoker is a robust, reliable unit. we have several dealers in the area and if needed a service call is one phone call away. when i was gone over the road we needed to have it serviced, the blower didnt get oiled and the wife had no idea what the problem was. it was a $30 service call. have a problem with a high efficiency gas furnace your into the hundreds pretty quick..... and those things have a much, much shorter service life.

so the question, does someone burning nut burn less then rice; just from an educational point of view. im not looking to convert, this thing is the best source of heat i have ever had.

 
User avatar
michaelanthony
Member
Posts: 4550
Joined: Sat. Nov. 22, 2008 10:42 pm
Location: millinocket,me.
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Vigilant 2310, gold marc box stove
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Gold Marc Independence
Baseburners & Antiques: Home Sparkle 12
Coal Size/Type: 'nut
Other Heating: Fujitsu mini split, FHA oil furnace

Post by michaelanthony » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 4:58 am

HB is probably enroute to the anointment ceremonies he has been avoiding for years, thank god there is no statute of limitations for his Certificate of Thinkology.
...anyway I think I understand your question and my thoughts are thus: given the coal of various sizes comes from the same mine and seam, you should get the same btu value regardless of the size. Burning coal in different furnaces, and or hand fed stoves opens up a big can of worms because of the different efficiencies per each unit. Some antique stoves and a few modern ones extract as much heat as possible from every ounce, (pound etc.) of coal and some stokers run best with a little unburnt coal sliding into the ash bucket...so I guess you would need to run a side by side test and weigh all the coal used and then see which unit heats YOUR house the best.
Now you have a reason to buy a hand fed stove!

 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 5:21 am

No pound for pound difference in the heat within the coal. Much greater control and efficiency for the stoker vs. hand fired.

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17980
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. » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 7:04 am

My opinion is that it could go either way depending on the stove and the operator. A high-end hand fired stove (like an antique base burner) with a good operator would win out compared to a stoker stove with poorly adjusted controls. I also think the opposite is also true.

Regardless of any differences in efficiency, most people choose one or the other for different reasons. The hand-fired crowd loves the radiant heat, no electric needed, and silent operation of their equipment. The stoker guys like the convince, and thermostat control of a stoker. Choose whatever best fits your life style.

 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 7:43 am

Eventually I would like to have a stoker for the ease of use. But for now I really enjoy taking care of my hand fed furnace.

My perspective is like this, hand fed stoves are more hobbyish. To prefer it over a stoker you really need to "love" and get satisfaction out of taking care of your fire which I do lol.


 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 8:02 am

If one looks at the overall running expense of the different coal burners,the handfed stove will be the big winner.If tended properly,a hand fed stove will go MANY yrs with no parts replacement except for gaskets. If no blower is used to move the heat,there is no additional expense to operating a handfed other than the coal.

 
ad356
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat. Sep. 21, 2013 7:07 am
Location: north java, ny

Post by ad356 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 10:16 am

either way you cant loose compared to one of these fancy high efficiency gas furnaces, loaded with computer boards, fancy multiple stage motors and thin heat exchangers. comparatively speaking a stoker might have motors and blowers that can fail, but the controls are equivalent to a 1960's gas furnace...... simplicity wins out. not to mention not being a captive to the utility company. i have well water, use coal for heat..... now if only i could effectively generate all of my own electricity economically i could be done with the scum bag utility companies lol.

i have ZERO regrets buying a stoker stove, best $750 i ever spent. it has been almost completely flawlessly reliable for the last 3 years...... and this stove is already 10+ years old. its a 2006, i expect to have to for many years to come.

hand fired is interesting but i probably wont buy one. i need that automation.

hands down, firmly believe that any source of anthracite heat is the most economical way to heat, especially an old drafty home.

i always say that a modern gas furnace is a fairly complex piece of equipment, because that complexity is needed to extract all of the energy out of what really is a poor fuel.

 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 10:55 am

The advantage of both gas and oil is that they are full on or off, which allows both fuel metering and air to be at one set point that gives highest efficiency. The complexity of gas only comes in when stack temperature gets squeezed done to nothing, otherwise it is the simplest of all.

The coal stoker also tends to be all on or idle, and it is that idle position that is inefficient and losses out to the hand fired operated at a mid output but steady firing rate. The stoker should be more efficient than the hand fired in really cold weather when it runs more steadily at set firing rate.

As Rob pointed out there is also operator skill in running at the best setting.

Feeding little but steadily is always best with any solid fuel including wood where the superiority of wood pellets is immediately apparent over logs.

 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 12:34 pm

lsayre wrote:
Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 5:21 am
No pound for pound difference in the heat within the coal. Much greater control and efficiency for the stoker vs. hand fired.
x2. Studies conducted long ago by EFM estimated the efficiency advantage of stokers at around 20%.

Mike

 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 1:53 pm

So does that mean I'd only use 4.4 tons instead of 5.5 for a heating season with a stoker instead of the hand fed? Hmmm. :eh: I have some reservations about that, but maybe.

 
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 » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 1:57 pm

I ran a hand fed for 26 years, German made Buderus. It served us well. It was a bit of a challenge for my bride while I too was away for weeks at a time being home only on weekends, but she managed. As far as efficiency the Buderus was quite efficient with a 4.7 inch chimney on a 55KBTU stove. I too now have a Keystoker90 but went all out and got the Coal-troll as well. The Coal-troll allowed me to integrate the output into my home grown air distribution system, My Keystoker is in the basement family room at the opposite end of the house with my bedrooms on the main floor, ranch house. With just a maybe 10% increase in coal usage I am heating more space, with a steadier temp and even now heating the attached one car garage. I don't skimp on coal and use around 3 tons, which was I always bought with the Buderus. I also would have to supplement the Buderus with oil heat when temps approached 0, not with the Keystoker. There where times the Buderus would get ashed up and required dumping of good and used coal to free things up, which does not happen on the Keystoker. I will be the first to admit I DO MISS THE SILENCE of the hand fed, but love the convenience of the stoker.

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17980
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. » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 2:03 pm

x2. Studies conducted long ago by EFM estimated the efficiency advantage of stokers at around 20%.

Mike
Mike, I imagine EFM's example was a large hand fired boiler that had a conversion stoker installed. Probably one of the few examples when the heat exchanger and load remained the same.

When most home owners switch from a stoker to handfed (or the other way around), it is a completely different appliance, and often a different BTU output. In my opinion it makes most examples of people switching from one to the other misleading. I am not saying that one appliance won't be more efficient, just saying it often is not the firing method that accounts for the difference.

 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 4:06 pm

Rob R. wrote:
Sat. Nov. 04, 2017 2:03 pm

I imagine EFM's example was a large hand fired boiler that had a conversion stoker installed. Probably one of the few examples when the heat exchanger and load remained the same.

When most home owners switch from a stoker to handfed (or the other way around), it is a completely different appliance, and often a different BTU output. In my opinion it makes most examples of people switching from one to the other misleading. I am not saying that one appliance won't be more efficient, just saying it often is not the firing method that accounts for the difference.
I agree that the EFM numbers likely held everything else constant, and that's why I think they give a pretty direct answer to the OP's question. I agree that if you change other parameters you could get all kinds of different usage changes, but all else equal, the control you get with a stoker to match the fire to the load creates an efficiency advantage.

Mike


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”