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