coalkirk wrote:(Richard, the numers please)
Richard S. wrote:There's a odor but you the chances of ever smelling it are nil unless you're using a power venter at ground level. I may have smelled ours maybe a couple of times through the years, I live next to the river and it can get very humid in the morning. On hot humid mornings I've gotten a wiff but that's really rare.
There's no visible emissions..
Yanche wrote:Sorry but, that's the me only attitude. The nation is again in an energy crisis, the reasons are clear just like oil man T. Boone Pickens says. See:
In my opinion increased Anthracite usage for residential home heating would be good for the nation. It would reduce oil usage, make jobs in PA and keep the money in the USA. It's a policy that could influence world demand for oil. Sure there might be spot Anthracite shortages but the investment money would follow and the supply would meet the demand. It costs one hell of a lot less to make a new coal breaker than a oil refinery. It's a national policy issue. How about a more realistic safety regulations and enforcement of Anthracite coal mining? Especially underground mining. What I fear is the same requirements, regulations, etc. will get applied to Anthracite coal as the dirtier Bituminous coal and we will all be up a creek without a paddle.
Congress is now writing an energy policy. Staffers are weighing the pros and cons of energy vs. environmental issues. What they believe will largely make it into law. This just the way it is, it's how laws get written. Sure it gets debated and voted on but in the end it's much like the congressional staff recommended it. It doesn't matter who gets elected. Nows the time for our action to let Congress know there is a relatively clean home grown fuel, much closer to east coast Americans than any foreign oil.
How is the coal emissions compared to burning wood?
titleist1 wrote:Assuming 138,700 btu / gallon of oil, there is 22.384 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon which translates to 161 lbs of CO2 per 1,000,000 btus.
Richard S. wrote:We need Yanche in on this discussion. Frankly even with accurate numbers its too hard to quantify the real total. As one of the previous posters mentioned the emissions caused by getting it to your doorstep before you even burn it are going to be much less that oil that was shipped all the way from the Persian gulf.
Another point that I believe Yanche previously mentioned is when you are burning the coal you are doing it in a very efficient manner. If you're house was 100% electric half of that electricity was produced by coal (nationwide). Power plants are not very efficient especially the older ones. There's also X amount of energy lost during delivery so in the end you would have a much lower emission level burning coal than using electric for your heat. I find it ironic that people using electric would most likely look down their noses at a coal burner as the "evil polluter" when in fact the opposite would be true.
mikeandgerry wrote:co2 emissions are heavier (co2 isn't technically a pollutant)
I didn't read the entire document, I'd have to read it thoroughly then research it and read it again to really understand it but from the tables presented that appears to be the only real issue with burning anthracite coal.