Carbon Tax Talk

Ctyankee wrote:With the election out of the way, the idea of a CO2 tax is in the news again.
The number in the news article is around $20 tax per ton of CO2. From what I understand a ton coal creates 5,685 pounds of CO2. That would be a real cost increase for heating during a season, but it still better than oil I guess. Maybe we better figure out where to store a TT load and buy it before bill ever passes!

I wonder if they are going to make every household that burns heating oil, propane, or natural gas pay this tax? Any fossil fuel produces CO2 when burned, not just coal. Don't forget about anything that runs on gasoline and diesel...

OK , now it's time for a broken down old man who got his qualifications in the 70s to remind the EPA scientists how epidemiology and toxicology work in the real world.

On Aug 19th in downtown Pittston, some of the planets best tasting tomatoes were thrown around celebrating yet another year of great crops. If our liberal friends did not have their heads up their rectums, the science of coal ash toxicity was there to observe.

It's cold this morning and I am bored so read awhile.

Let me explain how you determine if things are toxic. We can separate out acute and chronic toxicity easily. Cyanide is toxic, I take some and I die, yep it's toxic. However, how about if cigarette smoking has an effect on cardiovascular desease. I have a cigarette and I don't die. I smoke 100 cigs and I am still fine, how do we determine cause and effect? The best study ever run was the 1948 Framingham srudy and EPA scientists will acknowedge that one. This is a coal board so I will just Wiki the reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study

Now coal ash does have toxic compounds embedded and releasing millions of tons into a river is never a good idea and should never happen again, however, assessing the relative harm associated with ash and for example CO2 is a matter of benefit/risk. That is what Sam and his hoards of uneducated lunies never care about. The stupid law of best practices is an unending quest for the holy grail without worrying about costs.

So let's get back to the humble Pittston tomato.

Here we have a classic Framingham-type database spread over 100 years at least. NJ tomatoes are grown in soil but in Pittston crops are grown in mine rock, coal ash and culm. So we have two distinct populations, near to each other and the effects of coal ash can be statistically studied. So we do that? No of course not, we just rabbit on about best practices. We are governed by idiots that that were elected by morons.

Cancer clusters and clusters of radioactive poisoning and clusters of cause and effect on just about anything are drawn up on global maps for the educated to study. I have some of these (now very outdated) atlases. I can tell you many things like we were idiots to let marines get exposed to radioactive clouds of dust in the 50s. I can tell you how many millions will die from Fukushima (yes, millions). We can tell you how many will still die from Chernobyl and I can tell you next August I am going to Pittston to throw tomatoes around and eat the local produce.

Now don't get me started about CO2.

phknidots

I have been ACTIVELY working to INCREASE my carbon footprint at every opportunity, and will continue to do so until the Eco-Freaks like Al Gore and that lot (who are profiting immensely) from all this nonsense about global warming start walking the walk instead of talking the talk. They seem to think because they're so special and elite that they need 30,000sq ft homes, fleets of SUVs and private jets to house and whisk them from place to place. So, in opposition I burn coal, burn leaves and burn just about everything I can get my hands on as my small and insignificant protest.

That is also one of the prime reasons why I'm burning coal right now. Because it is my right as a free man to do so. I've greatly expanded my carbon footprint.

By: lsayre
... I've greatly expanded my carbon footprint.

But have you/we really? Rob had a good point. If you were burning gas, propane, oil, etc. you were already putting carbon into the air.
I'm with you guys, I feel very good about being smart enough to have converted to anthracite for heating and will continue to do so!

1 Therm of natural gas produces 11.7 lbs. of CO2. 1 Therm = 100,000 BTU's. If a ton of coal can achieve 20,000,000 BTU's of output per ton that would require 200 Therms of NG to be its BTU equivalent.

200 Therms x 11.7lbs. CO2/Therm = 2,340 lbs. of CO2

That's only about 40% of the CO2 that the BTU equivalent via burning anthracite would generate.

BTW, every gallon of gasoline burned in a car or truck generates about 20 lbs. of CO2. And humans exhale on average 2.3 lbs. of CO2 per day.

With respect to CO2 generation, one ton of burned anthracite is the equivalent of 7 years of breathing by one human being. And one human lifespan equals about 10 to 12 tons of anthracite.

If I am reading this report correctly, the year to date consumption of coal just for power generation is 560 million tons.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_ ... =epmt_es2a

Total Anthracite production is maybe 2.3 million tons. Only a portion of that is used for space heating.

Let's put this into perspective: We are just a fart in the windstorm of CO2 generation and politics. Prepare to get battered about.

steamup wrote: Let's put this into perspective: We are just a fart in the windstorm of CO2 generation and politics. Prepare to get battered about.

That's what I'm worried about as well, the wizards of smart in DC that write the laws have a habit of catching Dolphins in the Tuna nets...so to speak.

Total Anthracite production is maybe 2.3 million tons. Only a portion of that is used for space heating.

I just don't get it. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and yet it became obvious to me 5 years ago I needed to switch to survive. The only discussion I will listen to is which type of coal heating is best and how best to use the systems, not whether or not to use coal as my primary heat. We will never get nat. gas here! Lot's of poor starving middle class people out there. My wife came back from a vets wifes Sat. morning get together (yuk). The house was at 55F and everybody sat around and ate breakfast wearing coats and her husband is really sick with a bad respiratory infection. She came back and hovered over our little Jotul 507, opened the lower door for 5 minutes ( yes she then closed it) and stood there for 30 mins moaning ---- never again. You gotta have a POH device somewhere in my view. She's learning to lower the uranium rods a little more each day. HAHAHAHAHA. I just don't get it.

My carbon footprint? WGAF.

I used to have a 1933 booklet from the worlds fair talking about the wonders of coal. And it mentioned in there somewhere that Anthracite burns cleaner than natural gas. I've often wondered about that statement. It certainly looks clean as it burns.

Ya gotta remember, scientists don't have windows, just books--pretty much like our great debaters. Welcome to the FORUM Earl

We will not see a carbon tax on the home heating front....it will NEVER fly!

something I read today
**Broken Link(s) Removed**

I think it is silly, partly because as a farmer we already do some silly things in the name of conservation. Having to measure the free-board on a manure pit weekly so that it does not overflow when you drive by it EVERYDAY is one such aspect of farming that they could easily remove without fear of us destroying an entire watershed!

Now I know it is not 1985, and while it was much easier to farm then, things are just different now, but this carbon sequestering just does not sound right to me. Partly because some farmers will really do well with this, particularly the large ranchers and no-till farmers. We on the other hand, dairy farmers with small acreages (in proportion to ranchers and the corn belt farmers) who have livestock, will have cow farts to deal with, low acreage amounts which is a economy of scale issue with carbon sequestering, and cannot no-till farm. Our soil here just is not conducive to it; we have tried, but just cannot get corn to grow like we can when we use minimum till. Still it does not qualify so we would end of paying in. Still soil testing proves that we are spot on; the only thing our fields really need is a higher PH...not surprising in low ph Maine.

This is the part that does not seem right; if you are utilizing farming best management practices, and the soil testing shows that you are doing things right, then why would carbon sequestering go against those practices in an effort to improve things? For instance, no-till farmers in the corn belt knife in anhydrous ammonia for fertilizer and have low organic matter in their soil, yet we use dairy cow manure and are near the upper end of the spectrum for organic matter. We do not need to knife in what amounts to natural gas to get our nitrogen levels up. And anyone that thinks that is good for soil fertility should plow up an acre of chemical fertilizer applied ground and see how dead it is, with no micro-organisms growing in it,and no earth worms then watch the night crawlers flee in our fields after making a pass with the disk harrow. My Grandfather taught me a long time ago to use earth worms as a measure of soil fertility...no soil testing really needed (he taught me about weeds and which ones indicate high or ph levels too), but somehow their system qualifies as being better for the environment and our doesn't?

They can kiss one of our cows hiney's if they think I will believe that: preferably right before it takes a nice loud cow fart that is supposed to be killing the great green earth they graze upon!

Note: To be honest, we do use a anhydrous ammonia fertilizer top dress on the corn right before the ear starts to make a better ear of corn, but since this is a sprayed product, it is far less potent percentage wise then the anhydrous ammonia that is knifed in out west. Our main fertilizer is cow manure!

My Take
I think the most practical course of action would be to increase the CONSUMPTION of CO2. How.....plant more trees. Stop burning the rain forest. The rain forest is (was) a huge CO2 sink. By planting more trees, stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forest and within the realm of a concise energy policy of reducing reliance on fossil fuels over a realistic time frame that allows technology to truly be cost effective we can eliminate our reliance on those crazy sobs in the mideast and bring industry back to the USA. This ain't rocket science....you can't get to any destination without a road map my friends.
Gian 4