I have no "expert" knowledge on this, but remember our wood burning 
cookstove from childhood.  I would think since coal burns a lot longer than 
wood, woodburning cookstoves would be preferred.  Coal in a fireplace or 
parlor stove would give a longer burn time, but you wouldn't want this 
longer burn time in a kitchen stove.  You also can control the temperature 
from wood a lot easier than you can from coal.

Barbara

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: [VA-HIST] Richmond Coal: Heating and Cooking


> Richmond coal is "soft" and full of sulphur and other nasties that  made 
> it not useful for iron furnaces. It did, however, get shipped all  up the 
> east coast as heating fuel. The question rose this morning as  to whether 
> it was used in standard household cooking stoves in  Richmond or whether 
> there was one source for heating: coal and another  for cooking: wood, as 
> in the imparting of nasty elements from coal to  the food would make wood 
> the fuel of choice. Anyone seen anything on  that?
>
> Lyle Browning
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions 
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html