I would not say that I have "made it up", rather that my suggestions are repeating accepted advice on small scale coal storage for domestic purposes.

Or put simply, modest stocks of coal should be well ventilated so as to keep it cool. This does indeed entail loss by slow oxidation.
A pile of a few tons should never self heat by more than a couple of degrees, this not only limits the slow loss of the fuel by oxidation, but also effectively eliminates risk of spontaneous combustion.
My source for this is a coal research council leaflet published decades ago in the UK.

(For large coal piles such as found at coal burning power plants and containing thousands of tons of coal the approach is very different. Such large piles cant be effectively ventilated so as to keep the temperature down.
Instead air is excluded so far as possible in the hope that the slow oxidation will soon consume the oxygen in the pile, without raising the internal temperature too much. The small amount of air entering should hopefully produce such slow oxidation as not be dangerous.
Means of limiting air ingress include packing or compacting the coal tightly, building piles with gently sloping sides, sealing the pile with a slurry of ash and water, and building wind breaks around the pile.
These techniques are not that reliable and fires in large coal piles are a known hazard.)

I give the above info contained in brackets ( ) in the interests of accuracy and completeness, but it is not relevant to domestic coal storage.

ok, please allow me to rephrase, citation needed

You guys got me interested. A quick internet search produced a scientific paper on tests of various methods of controlling/mitigating spontaneous combustion of coal at power plants; the results seem to agree with Adam2's write up on storage of large amounts of coal: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/...al_storage_yard

Hope this helps!

Up here in Alaska, neither solar nor wind generation is practical in the winter. Gotta go with combustion as nuclear is too hard to license.

I already linked it, their test pile is 2k-5k tons ... a truckload is 20-23 tons ... so their test piles is 200-250 truck loads ... a truck load is about $4k-$5k ... so $400k-$1mil...

if a truckload can a year or ..in a pile or bin ... I don't see why it couldn't last longer ... (based on reading some threads on nepacrossroads.com )

the paper discusses covering the pile with ash/dirt to prevent loss of calories....

but like I said, if I were going to try to store 40 tons or two truck loads or $8k-$10k worth of coal
I'd talk to more than one person in the industry, a professor, osha, someone whos studied it in-depth and has a checklist

Sorry Ben, but I've got to call BS on that statement. There is actually quite a lot of wind and solar projects going in around the state.

As far as large utility scale projects, you might take a look out in Cook Inlet to Fire Island. A number of big wind turbines out there, from the Fire Island Wind Project. Also, the next time you drive up to Fairbanks, take a look to the east when you get north of Healy, and notice the Eva Creek Wind Project. Smaller scale wind projects are going in all over the place, both homeowner scale and village scale. We've got plenty of wind in Alaska.

Surprisingly enough, solar is also being used quite a lot in Alaska. Some years back in 2010 we went on the Alaska Solar Tour. Quite an eye opener regarding the possiblilities for home scale solar heat and power. Some folks in Anchorage and Mat-Su heat their homes entirely with solar, year around. Others get most of their heat from solar, but supplement with other heat sources only during the coldest weather.

There is also a great deal of research on hybrid wind/solar/diesel systems for rural villages in Alaska. Most remote villages get their electricity from diesel generators. Given the high cost of transporting fuel to the villages, a hybrid system using solar and wind to supplement makes a huge difference.

You really should get out more and see what is going on.

The more remote your location, the more attractive solar and wind energy generation become. On the islands where i have worked, solar/wind is dominant and the gennies only run enough (10% of the time) to insure their functionality just in case....Works just fine and in the long run, cheaper.

Solar, wind, more insulation, and better design are also very attractive for new construction in almost any location. Many things which might not make so much economic sense for adding to an existing home become very feasible if designed in from the ground up.

This morning's news brings an interesting example of what is possible: Fairbanks engineer focused on energy efficiency brings his work home.

Note that this is in Fairbanks, a city not noted for mild winters! Grunau goes on to note that even modest improvements in existing homes pay big dividends in energy efficiency.

I live in one of the older neighborhoods in Anchorage, and my home was build in the 1950's (pre-earthquake). It has been remodeled at least twice before we bought it. Because of various quirks in the existing house, adding solar heat didn't make much economic sense. Nevertheless, by replacing the 30 year old boiler with a super energy efficient model with an integrated water heater, and adding new insulation, we have cut our winter heating bills very substantially.

Yes, there are places like Fire Island where they put up wind generators, with marginal degree of success(there's been some controversy with the utilization of that site. Most of the time I fly by it, the rotors are sitting idle). Last I looked while I was flying over that spot, not a lot of people living out there.

The wind does blow here in the valley some, once in a while, but not often enough to be a reliable energy source. At most where I am it is a novelty. There are other good spots too, but my extension cords aren't quite long enough...

If you can scale up the solar panels for the area, they will indeed make the juice most of the time, even in the winter. However, compared to the lower 48, the cost per watt is far more expensive than comparable energy production from coal burning.

Now if I had an unlimited funding source, or even one a bit better than what I currently can obtain, then I would not be so concerned with the economical aspects of energy production up here where I am. However, the whole point of this thread was to determine if coal would be a viable and affordable energy source for the conditions I am stuck with. My conclusion is that coal will indeed work well, both as an alternate energy source here at home and a more portable one for retreat, bug out, and so on. You could implement wind and solar, but at considerably greater expense for the scale needed to make it truly reliable for an individual like me.

I am nonetheless quite interested in those other forms of energy collection. I am just trying to keep a practical aspect on my preps along with more exotic alternatives. Personal economics is still a fairly high priority, much as I would rather it weren't at this point.

In some remote locations otherwise lacking in reliable energy sources, wind and solar systems, however expensive they may be, are the only option. For the most part, their utilization here has to be subsidized to be economically competitive, either by the industry, or by taxes, or both.

Somehow a big pile of coal doesn't fit my idea of a "portable" energy source. But hey, if it works for you, go for it!