Coal or wood

snowdrop51

What gives the best results in a multiburner cost & efficiency wise

alleycat`

snowdrop51 wrote: »

What gives the best results in a multiburner cost & efficiency wise

No simple answer in terms of which is best.

Firstly you probably wouldn't use coal, you'd use a smokeless fuel.

Most stoves are not suited to run coal and might invalidate the warranty if used.

Smokeless is, in my opinion, "cheaper", will last longer between reloads and requires less space to store (and it isn't as important if it gets wet, though not ideal).

For the above reasons i use it if i have the fire in and am going out or for overnight usage.

The downside are that the flame "picture" is pretty naff, the amount of ash produced is much higher and it's not particularly clean.

Wood is more expensive to buy, requires far greater storage space and needs to "weather dry" before it can be used.

It also requires some manual hefting / splitting (which i enjoy but some people find a chore).

On the positive sides, wood is much prettier to look at, outputs greater heat (at least in my stove), produces much less ash and is much cleaner generally to handle.

The third way is wood briquettes which are a bit of a half way house between wooden logs and smokeless fuel.

They need less space for storage but must be kept dry.
They are more expensive (in my testing) than either of the other forms of fuel but are useful to have around from time to time.

I consider them horses for courses complimentary fuels but if the only motivation is money smokeless is cheapest (at least in my area).

A._Badger

I'd agree with everything Alleycat said but one. Smokeless fuel has a much higher calorific value than wood so produces more heat for a given quantity.

Two additional thoughts I'd add are that stoves run using wood require having the chimney swept much more frequently than those run on smokeless fuel and that you need to experiment a bit to find out which smokeless fuel works best on your particular stove. Oh yes, and emptying the ash from a smokeless (or coal) fire is a messy and time-consuming business which is not true of wood. A wood fire only needs a bit of ash removing every now and then.

Williwoodburner

Even with access to 'free' wood, producing seasoned logs to burn costs much in time, effort and equipment.
Then there is seasoning and storage to consider, I burn approx 2 cords of wood per season which ideally needs 2 years seasoning so need space to stack 6 cords of wood (approx. 30 builders bags).
So
If you have to buy fuel I would say smokeless is easier and cheaper.

alleycat`

A._Badger wrote: »

I'd agree with everything Alleycat said but one. Smokeless fuel has a much higher calorific value than wood so produces more heat for a given quantity.

Good correction.

I should have said the wood will heat the stove and the room up faster, at least in my case.

I can also use wood to maintain a higher temperature for the stove.

I find smokeless doesn't go as hot but will maintain the lower (300F) heat for a much longer period of time, which is why the clarification is important.