Coal removal
So i did get some answers:
The smallish coal is quite possibly anthracite. Anthracite is often smaller because it is “high value coal” and producing so much heat allows them to make it smaller.
It is used less in fireplaces, if at all, often because of its size. Later on, by the 1970’s, anthracite was getting harder to find and people were using bituminous. That would be the lumps i saw in the ’70’s.
From an environmental standpoint, in the 1970s, most of the people burning wood were not environmentalists but people wanting to depend less on big oil and try to save money. BUT, from an environmental standpoint, wood is, as you said robert, renewable. With today’s technology and modern wood and coal stoves with catalytic convertors and proper air adjustments, the stack pollutants are a lot less than they had been if people use the equipment properly.
The real problem the environmentslists have with coal is the mining process which is destructive to the earth and itself uses a lot of resources.
They do still manufacture coal fire place inserts and stoves. Most of these are marketed in places like west virginia and pennsy where coal is still prevalant.
That is the best i can get.
andriywww1990
in General Discussion 3 years and 4 months ago
8
Please log in, in order to post replies!
8 replies
Guest User | 3 years and 4 months ago
Is there anyone out there who takes away unused coal from an old boiler fuel room? Found this in upper west side building newly under my management. Looks like it is the remains from the last delivery of coal before the building upgraded to oil long ago. No need to remove it at the moment. Wondering if anyone has a use and want for this so I don’t have to hire a rubbish remover instead. Quite a time capsule [Resized_20220616_143247](//muut.com/u/brownstoner/s2/:brownstoner:bmcG:resized_20220616_143247.jpeg.jpg)
andriywww1990 | 3 years and 4 months ago
It does not look big enough for most coal stoves or fire places. Usually it is lumps.
How much is there? Maybe a coal yard will remove, if any are left. They were all over LI a couple decades ago.
andriywww1990 | 3 years and 4 months ago
So for those who might be reading this and might be thinking they can use this coal in a coal fire place:
The person seated next to me grew up in a home with no central heat and hence, had four coal burning fire places. She explained that after a good coal fire had been built up with larger pieces they would spread smaller pieces of coal, including chips, on top of the larger. The smaller pieces were called “slack” and this was done to create a fire with a uniform red glow on top. Slack can include leftover bits of coal from the previous evening’s fire, chips from the coal bin and another grade of purchased coal.
RobertGMarvin
in General Discussion 3 years and 4 months ago
I thought that coal fireplaces used soft cannel coal rather than the anthracite coal burned in furnaces
andriywww1990 | 3 years and 4 months ago
I did not grow up with people putting this stuff in fireplaces. I had neighbors who burned it in stoves and the people who lived behind us had a relation affiliated with pagels coal yard in sayville. I recall two types going into stoves; larger and softer pieces and smaller (but not as small as what op has put forth) pieces that were hard. When i got to college and took geology, i think i decided these were bituminous and something close to antracite. Could be wrong.
I can ask my better halfs relations in ireland what grades of coal they were burning. I might be stretching my imagination a bit but i thought i heard anthracite. I know it was “smokeless” and from poland. That smokeless part sound like something that burns hot and i think anthracite burns hot.
I am either guessing here or repeating stuff i was told in excess of 35 years ago, so i may be wrong. But bob, i guess your recollection comes from steam trains? They burned anthracite, didn’t they?
RobertGMarvin
in General Discussion 3 years and 4 months ago
My knowledge of coal, such as it is, comes from mid-70s articles in the Old House Journal about coal-burning fireplaces. When O was conserving converting one of my disconnected gas fireplaces I thought that coal might be an easier conversion than wood. I ended up abandoning the idea.
RE: steam trains, I mostly know about my old Lionels, although, if O woke up really early as a kid I could see a steam engine pulling a freight train on the LIRR tracks t h at ran between Austin and Burns Streets in Forest Hills.
andriywww1990 | 3 years and 4 months ago
My uncle was an editor for Mother Earth News. Sometimes when stuff like this comes up on here, i call him. i will call him about coal when i get some time, this weekend. His area of expertise was alternative fuels and he joined mother earth in the 70’s when everyone was going nuts over wood and coal stoves. And he hates burning coal so i can tell you nothing good will come out of this conversation.
RobertGMarvin
in General Discussion 3 years and 4 months ago
It seems strange that the burning of wood was considered ecologically sound a generation ago. It IS a renewable resource, but we didn’t consider the impact of releasing all that carbon into the atmosphere.