Anthracite stack emmisions

I don't know. Not that many mines still in operation. If they geared up, all those miners need to be paid, insured etc. I think prices would jump. Anything in more demand goes up it seems. If I can't get the 24 ton load of rice i'm looking for, i might be burning dead cats.

First mistake is talking to the neighbors because some of the will get nervous and think that you'll be puffing black smoke into their yards. I try to fly under the radar.

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:

http://www.pickensplan.com/

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.

I've read the Pickens plan and think it makes good sense. I don't see anything about solar in his plans but the wind and natural gas are things we could and should do now. Of course it's being done but it needs a kick in the pants. I see nothing about anthracite coal in his plan. Frankly we don't have enough anthracite coal for it to be part of a national plan. And besides even if we did, I still say most Americans are too lazy to burn coal. In the words of Marie Antoinette, "let them burn pellets." I meet with around 400 sets of homeowners a year and discuss with them among other things their energy use and ways to reduce it. Almost without exception, they all want a pellet stove. When I bring up coal I get a bemused look that says, "are you crazy?" It's just not going to happen in any major way. But folks like us are making a huge difference. This forum was a ghost town during the summer months last year. Look at it now. Smart, inquistive, motivated folks looking for an alternative are finding this forum in record numbers. (Richard, the numers please) I'm personally saving 1,100 gallons of oil per year by not burning coal. I've tried to convert many others but have only one success. That's my wifes cousin who is shall we say "thrifty. " He heated his home primarily with wood before coal just like I did for years. People like us (forum members) are the exception to the rule. Maybe I just don't have enough faith in my fellow man.

coalkirk wrote:(Richard, the numers please)

Well... All I will say is the last two months have been the busiest months ever. I served almost a gig of bandwidth yesterday... It wasn't the most pages served but was the highest recorded bandwidth usage I had. One of the issues with the stats is they are not entirely accurate.

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..

I have a pretty basic setup and depending on conditions, I can get a STRONG "rotten egg" smell on a fresh load. As long as a half hour. And while trying(unsuccessfully) to slide on my frozen over in ground pool one year, a close examination revealed a fine coating of fly ash.

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

That said, I'm not going to stop burning coal unless they make it illegal.

The rotten egg smell is the sulfur, guess it depends on your conditions. Our chimney is probably a good 15 feet above the closest window on the second floor so its really high above the ground. Matter of fact where I have my office would be the closest place to it and when I have the windows open I never get any smell...

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:

http://www.pickensplan.com/

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.

Yanche That is the Problem already with the Anthracite Deep Mining They already applied the Rules and Regs For Bit mining
to the Anthracite Mining That is where all the Problems started 1968 Anthracite coal Mining had there own set of Rules & Regs for mining the book was written to make Anthracite Deep mining safer for the miners Msha started in 1978
I think it was 1991 or 92 is when the two new guys from Mhsa where put in to office witch one or both are from the south soft coal Region Neither one knows anything about Anthracite mining They are Pushing together Bit Rules & Regs with Anthracite this is when the *censored* hits the fan And it is Getting worst for the Anthracite Deep miners There are many cases down here That what the Msha Inspectors are telling the miners what to do in the mines to make them safer some of the stuff is making it more unsafe for the miners These Miners have been mining there whole life most of them are 5 or 6 Gen. miners they know what works and what don't They know what is safe and what is not Instead of the Inspectors telling the miners what to do they should listen to the miners

How is the coal emissions compared to burning wood? Is it a lot cleaner?


I think for a national plan they need to tap into more geothermal electric plants to supply the country with the electricity it needs. It's the cleanest option out there.

How is the coal emissions compared to burning wood?

The difference is night and day. Wood burns with visible smoke, constant odor, creosote build up in the stack, I'm sure there's higher gases as well.

My stoker burns with no detectable odor and the hand fed only smells just after reloading and I can only detect an odor outside if the weather conditions are right.

When I was burning wood in 2 stoves I drove down the road on the way home one cold day and saw a huge cloud of smoke up ahead. The air was still and the smoke was from the 2 chimneys on each end of my house.

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.

Something that I don't understand and need explained (not by an environmentalist) is how do you get 22.384 pounds of co2 form burning 1 gal of oil?

Oil weighs 7 pounds per gal; co2 has 2 molecules of oxygen to one of carbon. Oxygen is lighter than carbon. Assuming that oil is not 100% carbon (it would be coal) how can you end up with 22 pounds of co2. Three times 7 would be 21 pounds. Oil has a lot of other discharges like particulate sulfur compounds ect. So where does the extra weight come from.

Or are the environmental calculations flawed?

Food for thought

"Something that I don't understand and need explained (not by an environmentalist) is how do you get 22.384 pounds of co2 form burning 1 gal of oil?"

I had the same question when reading those numbers during the googling effort. I wouldn't think you could get more lbs than the initial material weighed. Well, maybe a little more since you are taking oxygen from the air to allow the burn, but I didn't think it would add up to 3 times the weight. Also, as I type this, I am wondering if it is fair to add the weight of the oxygen since it is already in the air.

A study I once saw regarding forest fires and their impact to carbon emissions basically took the amount of forest floor cover that was burned, calculated its weight and directly translated that weight to emissions. Maybe they were wrong in their calculations or maybe its an apples to oranges comparison I am making. This was a controlled burn where they placed stakes at the level of the forest floor "litter" and came back after the fire to see on average how many inches of cover had been burned. They figured the average weight of a sq. yard area that had burned and multiplied that out by the number of acres that was involved to come up with a carbon emission weight.

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.

You are quite right about the electric efficiency. With transmission losses coal generation is only about 45% efficient.