With the cost of high quality coal locally quite low, I think it is worth considering to sequester some at key locations nearby, as well as try to find a use for it here at home.

I've got stores of other fuels, such as kerosene, gas, propane, wood, etc, but the price per btu for these is all significantly higher than the coal I could buy. From a survival perspective, a good supply of cheap coal seems like a good idea. It should weather well, it is portable, it should be safer than most other forms to use, and there's lots of it here. It may not be as useful as gases or liquids for running motors, but I've seen some residential designs that include a sterling engine pto off the main combustion chamber.

Down on the peninsula, people pick coal up off the shoreline as erosion exposes shallow veins. I guess being exposed to seawater makes it stinky when it burns, but it still works for heat.

Just a thought.

Coal is great for a makeshift forging furnace building.

The coal up there is in the middle of the range of maturity - sub-bituminous. Worst to best: peat/lignite/sub-bituminous/bituminous/anthracite. It will be really dirty/smudgy I would guess. But, as a backup it would probably suffice.

When I camped on the Homer Spit for a week, there were small boulders (3'x2'x1.5') of the stuff all over the beach. By the way, it rained for 4.5 days out of 5 that I was on the beach.

The quality may depend on the location. Apparently Alaskan coal ranges from anthracite (great stove coal) to sub-bituminous or thermal coal (scurvy stuff for stoves unless they use a forced draft). Reference: http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-077/dds77text.html#heading154533232 .

Stored coal needs to be dried and kept as dry as possible, otherwise it will break down into dust over time, and that is really hard to make use of. Wet coal is problematic, obviously, because even if you can get it to burn, most of the heat energy goes up the flue as steam.

Storage location and method also has to account for coal's tendency to self-combust. I haven't had a problem storing it in closed pails in a shed, but power plants with coal piles exposed to the wind monitor them closely for evidence of combustion.

Then there's the challenge of a stove that will burn coal well. Wood stoves don't supply enough draft/oxygen, and the intense localized heat can cause serious damage. I imagine some sort of insert could be cobbled together in a pinch.

The bonus of a coal-fired stove is that the flue runs very cool and doesn't deposit creosote. And, if you use large lumps and know what you're doing, you can bank a fairly small stove to keep a cabin toasty all night. (A CO detector would be a good idea since heated coal produces oodles of it, and a partially blocked flue could lead to a very long sleep indeed.)

Agree that coal is cheap, easy and safe to store, and contains a lot of energy.

As you mention the present low price, I presume that you are considering purchase rather than scavenging ?

Here in the UK "smokeless fuel" is widely sold, this is coal that has been treated to remove most of the volatiles and thus allow it to burn with very little smoke.

Most woodburning stoves will burn this fuel with fair success and it is also excellent with a forced draft for blacksmithing work in a forge.

In any serious emergency, smoke from a fire or stove might attract most unwelcome attention. Smokeless fuel is preferable to real coal in this respect.

It harder to ignite than real coal, ensure that you have plenty of kindling or manufactured fire lighters.

If smokeless fuel is available affordably in your district then I would buy some.
In the UK it is sold in sacks each holding 25KG, often packed 40 sacks to a pallet for a metric ton of fuel.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of smokeless coal. It looks like coal that has been put through a coking process and then pressed into briquettes with a binder added to the mix.

(It occurs to me that the el cheapo barbecue briquettes I tried once were made from coal -- that would explain the price, and the flavour. Never again.)

To reiterate, though: a modern airtight wood burning stove will not burn coal well, and doing so will void the warranty. A grate and an additional layer of protection below would have to be added to take the intense localized heat. The door would probably have to be cracked open the entire time. I have no idea what the effect on a catalytic wood burner would be. (The good news is that antique coal/wood stoves can be had for a song, even free; but no building code or insurance company would allow them in a residence.)

You are in good company.

China is storing megatonnes of coal in the ocean as a strategic reserve and has done so for years enlarging islands and producing new ones.

Coal storage

Yes smokeless coal is indeed natural coal that has been put through a coking process, though at a lower temperature than true coke. In fact, an old name for it is "semi coke"
Some types are pressed into regular size briquettes, others retain the random shapes of small lumps of coal.

Here in the UK, multifuel stoves are very popular. They are primarily designed to burn logs, but can also burn smokeless coal, but NOT real coal.
The grate of these stoves is adjustable, for wood burning the grate bars are virtually touching so as to give a simulation of a solid surface. When burning smokeless coal, the grate bars have gaps between so as to give a good draft and permit of the ashes falling through to the ash pan.
A separate damper supplies combustion air via the ash pan to the underside of the grate, this should be kept shut when burning logs, but should be partly or even fully open when burning smokeless coal.

I have a small stove of this sort and normally burn logs, but keep a couple of tons of smokeless coal in reserve for emergencies. For a given energy content the smokeless coal takes up less storage space than logs which is a consideration if keeping a large supply.

store what you use, use what you store...
if you're buying fuel might as well buy a stove
(or build one) that will burn it clean

as for storage, avoid house sized piles, avoid rain

My thinking was to get a coal burning stove and stock about 4 tons a year (what I estimate I would have to go through up here during the cold season).

For the retreat, I was thinking maybe a connex box or two full of coal would be a good fallback. Just make sure they are not leaky and fairly secure. 40 tons of coal would last quite a while that way.

Coal Gun Stoker for home

This system looks promising. The local coal supplier described their coal as a high quality anthracite and sized for this system. Seems pretty straightforward. I'll have to look into costs and installation issues.

I burned coal for about 3 years. Hated it. Especially on those cold Maine mornings when the air was very still, clear, cold and STINKY! The fumes are very acidic and burned our lungs. Basically runined the outdoor experience until the wind began.

Then there is the ash. Toxic. Nasty stuff, expecially in quantity. Made a good driveway for a few years until we saw what it was doing to the surrounding plants. Finally had it all dug out and disposed of it in a commercial toxic landfill (after some sort of proce$$ing).

Not to mention the dust. I thought burning wood was dirty. Coal dust is very difficult to remove from cloth and can be very fine, getting into everything. Also very acidic. Saw damage to circuit boards, photographs and other acid sensitive items.

This was the best coal we could obtain from the local chain of a large coal vendor.

Just my experience. ....Nomad.

Yes coal is nasty dirty stuff to store and handle and it does produce unpleasant fumes when burnt, and the ash is slightly toxic.
The smokeless coal that I suggested earlier is a bit better than natural coal, but still not pleasant.

I would favour burning wood normally but keeping a reserve of coal for emergencies. If in some future emergency, you would otherwise freeze to death, then dirt and smoke from coal will be of little consequence.

This was my thinking. Seems like a good item to have around for emergency heat, or prepping for teotwawki. Having a 5 to 10 year reliable fuel source when the grid goes down seems like an appropriate hedge, even if it may not be the most desirable materials. Loading coal from the bunker to the hopper and emptying the ash can seems less taxing than bucking firewood. I reckon any convenience I can buy for myself now would be well appreciated by me later when the bubble goes up.

It's important to note that the chemical properties of coal vary significantly from region to region. It is a geological mineral influenced by the conditions of its formation.

In eastern Canada (and I assume the broad area of the USA that is geologically contiguous) the coal is very high in sulphur, making it pretty nasty stuff when burned in volume. The treaties dealing with the acid rain that affected lakes on both sides of the border were, to a substantial degree, related to coal burning. (The granite underpinning, already naturally acidic, did nothing to temper the effects.)

In western Canada, in my general area at least, the coal is low in sulphur. The underlying rock of the basin is limestone, tending toward basic, providing some buffering of acidic effects. (The concerns over super-fine particulate matter and other emissions are leading to a slow phase-out in the power generation industry; it's become an air quality issue. But this does not affect modest use in non-urban areas.)

As for Alaska? I'm curious as to the general chemistry.

In storing coal, it may be wise to remember that coal is subject to spontaneous combustion. I think there was a thread several years ago where this was discussed.

Unlikely to be a problem for amounts likely for domestic use, but yes, still take care.

Coal when exposed to the air very slowly reacts with oxygen from the air to produce carbon dioxide and heat. Under most conditions this heat is removed by normal air circulation and no undue temperature rise is produced.
In the case of a sufficiently large coal pile the heat can not be removed and the interior of the pile becomes hotter, thereby accelerating the reaction and producing more heat and eventually fire.
When the fire is confined to the interior of the coal pile it burns very slowly due to the limited air supply and may not become obvious until the pile is disturbed. Exposure of the very hot inside of a slowly burning coal pile to fresh air may result in a fierce fire.
Risk factors that tend to promote spontaneous combustion include
Very large coal piles
High ambient temperatures
Coal dust or very small coal in the pile
Damp.
Left undisturbed for a long time.

If a coal pile becomes unduly heated within, but is not actually burning, then the coal should be spread out over a large area to cool it. A mechanical excavator or similar machine will probably be needed. Fire fighting equipment should be to hand.

For safe storage of a few tons up to a few dozen tons, I would proceed as follows.

if the coal was purchased in small bags on pallets store it thus, but do not stack the pallets atop each other and allow a free air space on every side of every pallet.

If the coal came in one ton bags, keep it thus but not stacked and with a free air space on each side of each bag.

For small bags stacked by yourself, stack in such a way as to leave plenty of air spaces within the stacks.

For coal tipped loose, pile it as convenient but avoid more than 5 tons in one pile.

Getting ready for an interruption in the normal energy supplies, I would also put a lot of reliance on wind and solar, especially with coming improvements in battery storage technology. I was dinking around last week with a solar oven, and I actually made tea and baked biscuits on my first tries. Not so great for space heating, but those photons and electrons are easier to move than lumps of coal. On the other hand, Xmas is coming and the lumps of coal may come in handy.

Why?

if you do a search, you can see pallets of coal stacked 2 high,
Truck loads of 20-24 tons commonly stored in a pile, or in a truck sized bin....

Absolutely, coal is often transported or stored SHORT term in ways other than I suggest.
Road vehicles commonly carry up to 40 tons, rail vehicles up to 100 tons, and more than that is routinely tipped or dumped in one pile awaiting use or transfer.

If however you are storing coal on your property perhaps for decades, then I suggest being a great deal more cautious than a large industrial coal user with a rapid turnover.

so you're making stuff up? I like to do that too

One problem with lots of air spaces, is you're losing calories ... 2000-5000 ton test piles

its hard to find info, anyone buying coal need to talk to someone in the industry

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!

For a few years when I was young, we had an old house on some farm acreage where the house was heated with an even older coal stove.

I recall having to shovel the coal out in the shed and fill the coal bin in the house and that was dirty and dusty work. And not to mention, the dust was hard on the lungs. Also the fumes from that old coal stove was terrible and to this day, even a charcoal BBQ harshly reminds me of that coal stove we had.

Good burn quality coal for residential use is hard to come by in many areas here but I would never use it even if good quality was available as there are many other cleaner and safer (health wise) sources of energy to choose from.

From a scale of use perspective, I was thinking of portability of a couple bags such as in the back of the pickup. Instant campfire just about anywhere I would want to make one, even if it isn't the cleanest burning option. Along those lines, it would be a stable fuel source scalable by transport mode for general combustion at least as good as other typically portable types. Once at a retreat location, I would plan on relying on whatever fuel source is in place. But just to get there, even a 5 or 10 lb bag of coal could be a significant advantage for bug out. What would be an equivalent btu/lb load in propane, butane, gasoline, etc., packaged in what form, and in what method would it be utilized?

I can see some other marginal advantages to coal as a portable fuel source.

F15-lb Propane (38 lb net weight) 324,377 BTU_IT / $48.22 = 6,727 BTU_IT/$
to boil 5 liters takes 64 grams propane, and simmer for 45min takes 75grams, for a total of 139 grams
propane 6804 grams /139 grams = 48.9496... = 49 MEALS
propane 6804 grams /139 grams = 48.9496... = 49 MEALS
$28.25/49 = 0.588775510204082 $ a meal

http://centurycamping.com/stoves/trail/
4262 Single Burner Stove With Carry Bag
Uses 16.4 oz. propane cylinder (not included).
464.932 grams / 139 = 3.3448345323741 meals
$2.97-$3.50 Coleman Propane Fuel, 16.4 oz / 1lb
about $1 dollar a meal


Embers 16.6 lbs. Charcoal Briquets (9000 BTU/lb ) 149,400 BTU_IT / $5.99 = 24,941 BTU_IT/$

Mali Charcoal (bucket enclosure, cone grate, air control door)
Fuel Used to Boil 406 g
Fuel Used to Simmer 268 g +
TOTAL - 674 g
16.6lb = 7,529.642grams
7529.642 / 674 = 11.1715756676558 meals
5.99 / 11 = 0.544545454545455 $ meal

in a more improved stove (insulation, porskirt)
its possible for ~200 grams total (or better)
which would be 37.64821 meals, for 0.159104509882409$ per meal

3lb for $15.98 6 gal. Galvanized Steel Round Trash Can with Locking Lid
to improvise a stove
or a few paint cans hensoncf04 160 grams of charcoal boils and simmers 5 liters/CF04 Stove | Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves
7529.642 / 160 = 47.0602625 meals
$5.99 / 37 = $ 0.161891891891892 meal


Compare to this past winter 40 lb of premium wood pellets for 342,000 BTU / $4.98 = 68,675 BTU/$ dollar
woodgas camp stove (fanpower)
Fuel Used to Boil 235 g
Fuel Used to Simmer 224 g +
TOTAL - 459 g
40 lb pellets / 459 grams
18144 grams / 459 grams = 39 meals




with solid fuels you have no risk of leakage/explosion ... the stove you bring is adaptable to local fuels...

Wood pellets average 8,000 btu/lb (your values yield 8,850 btu/lb. Close enough for me).

Coal average yield 10,000 btu/lb.

I'd say that is more portable. It requires more technique perhaps than a propane stove, but these skills can be learned.

Looks like I need to go pick up some coal next week.

What kind of coal is 10,000 btu/lb?

thats numbers I gathered last year from whatever kind home depot was selling ...

Hard Coal (anthracite) 13,000 Btu/lb 26,000,000 Btu/ton
Soft Coal (bituminous) 12,000 Btu/lb 24,000,000 Btu/ton
Coal (Lignite) 15.00 8,000

I was using a conservative number, but yours makes my case even moreso.

From an industrial perspective, coal may not be ideal for a few regulatory reasons. But from an individual consumer position, especially in terms of subsistence and/or survival, coal makes a lot of practical sense.