Anthracite stack emmisions

According to that Freddy anthracite coal is bad, it's the worst one on the chart

The chart is misleading, that is emissions per short ton, compared to per gallon or per barrel for the liquid fuels. You need to calculate the emissions on equivalent amounts of each fuel. For example: 1 ton of coal is roughly equal to 180 gallons of #2 fuel oil.

I think Freddy intentionally altered the chart to dissuade others from switching to coal so that there would be more of it around for him to hoard!

It's based on a million btu's. A million btu's is a million btu's no matter what the source is right?


It's like looking at those recommended insulation level charts for your house, all the heating sources are the same until you get to electric heat were they recommend in increase in insulation. If more insulation is better for one then shouldn't it be better for all? After all a million btu's is a million btu's no matter where they come from. Factoring in the cost of said source shouldn't be taken into consideration.


P.S. I wouldn't put it past Freddy the coal monger!

Adamiscold wrote:According to that Freddy anthracite coal is bad, it's the worst one on the chart

There is more to it than just a number on a chart. I tried to make a fair comparison on the 2 ton of coal + ~200 gallons of propane (13,903 lbs) I use to heat each year vs. the ~1200 gallons of propane without coal (15,202 lbs) and heating with coal is definitely less CO2 lbs.

I guess it is because turning the coal into heat is a more efficient process that turning the propane into heat in our house. We have a Harmon Mark III centrally located in the basement with the Harmon blower and a 5 year old 90%+ condensing propane furnace. Also, the temperature of the house is about 6* warmer using the coal than propane. We would use a good bit more propane to keep the house at the same temp as coal, but I don't know what quantity in gallons that would translate to.

These numbers are also assuming the carbon emissions producing and delivering the propane and coal are about equal. That's probably not exact since I get one delivery of coal every 2-3 years and would have to get two deliveries of propane each season. I'm not sure how drilling & refining energy vs. mining & breaker energy would compare.

Here is some more Reading

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/inspector ... 3&q=476150

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/ ... /i7069.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_coal

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... %22Coal%22

Adamiscold wrote:According to that Freddy anthracite coal is bad, it's the worst one on the chart

Bare in mind that's just the CO emissions, unfortunately that's the one associated with global warming which is why the environmentalists are always screaming about burning coal. I'm venturing into areas that I have no scientific background in but I'd speculate the reason for the high CO emission is because it's nearly pure carbon. If you look it's even higher than bit. coal. On the other hand emissions from other pollutant's associated with burning other fossil fuels will be lower.

This link posted here by billw shows all emissions, I'd be interested in someone deciphering it because I don't belive those tables are showing a btu for btu comparison.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference ... haneke.pdf

I like global warming,cheaper to air condition than heat the house,damn the environmentalists,liberate those carbon monoxide molecules,if there's any unused cans of R12 in the garage grab a churchkey and liberate them too!RichB

The only emissions I'm worried about are the greenback emissions from my wallet !! Coal costs me about 1/4 to 1/3 of what propane costs to heat my 'Money Pit' . So Coal has the lowest 'emissions' in my way of thinking.

Greg L

The answer to the 'Skew' my highlights
A conservative emission factor for CO was selected because AP-42 states that emissions from
improperly operated or maintained coal-burning units may be “one or two orders of magnitude
higher” than the listed factors. We assumed that many residential coal-burning units would be
improperly operated or maintained. In addition, a 1986 version of AP-42 states emission factors of
anthracite and bituminous coal are interchangeable, “based on the similarity of anthracite and
bituminous coal.” The NEI was also queried to ascertain which emission factors were being used to
estimate CO emissions from anthracite coal burning boilers. The factor listed in Table 5 for CO was
found in the NEI to be used for both coal types, further bolstering the argument for using this factor
for estimating CO emissions from both types of coal.

You know what they say about assumptions!

Richard S. wrote:Bare in mind that's just the CO emissions, unfortunately that's the one associated with global warming which is why the environmentalists are always screaming about burning coal. I'm venturing into areas that I have no scientific background in but I'd speculate the reason for the high CO emission is because it's nearly pure carbon.

You hit it on the head, Richard. Coal would produce more CO and CO2 and less H2O (almost none) than oil . There are considerable amounts of hydrogen in oil which when oxidized produce water vapor (in molcules, equal to half the number of hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon chain) which is arguably a more effective and detrimental greenhouse gas than co2, if you believe that "concensus theory".

I think none of it is relevant because global warming is hype. We should be concerned about CO, NOx, VOC's and SO2 from coal and other fuels more than CO2. There is no argument that burning carbon fuels is dirty. Industrial stacks need scrubbing, no doubt, but carbon sequestration is "pie in the sky" and totally unnecessary.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg ... 15n2g.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Interesting, #2 oil has six times the NOx that anthracite has.

I have what probably is a silly question.
A gallon of fuel oil probably weighs about 8 pounds.
So how can burning it make 22.384 pounds of CO2?

Read my post above. I have wondered about this for years. If you look at the chart that Fredy posted it seems that all fuels create three times their weight in co2. In the case of coal we well know that probably 20% of the weight we shovel into the stove leaves as ash. I have still never heard a good explaination of how co2 emmisions can weigh so much compared to the original fuel.

I believe the answer is that we don't account for the Oxygen molecule in the C O2 the coal or other fuel provides the C.. the Carbon,, but we provide the Oxygen molecule when we burn the fuel. The Carbon molecular bonds are broken, heat is released, and Oxygen then bonds with the Carbon, creating a heavier molecule...

I'm pretty sure the above makes sense..

Yanche??? Am I close??

Greg L.

Combustion chemistry is not my area of expertise. I suggest you look at past posts by Berlin:

about572-30.html#p2664.

There he talks about the combustion process of Anthracite and Bituminous coals. Note how the products of combustion change depending on the amount of combustion air. Now add the impurities in your specific coal, primarily sulfur, and you have a very complex mix of emissions that will vary with how hard the coal equipment is firing.

We all make the false assumption that we can compare the emissions of coal burning electric power plants to residential coal burning. You can't, it's an entirely different combustion process. The power plant does everything economically possible to get all heat out of the coal. We do nothing. I know of no EPA like studies of residential Anthracite coal burning.

What I fear is there will be a rush, because there is a need to rush, for a national energy policy which will impose restrictions on burning coal. These restrictions will likely require costly environmental emissions equipment, that would be phased-in over time. You can see it happening now. You look at stock holder reports of electric utilities and they are talking about huge future capital investment for pollution controls. It's likely it will be unaffordable and/or unavailable for residential sized units. Existing coal appliances could easily be phased out by just banning the retail sale of coal. I've said this before, if there's ever a time for the Anthracite industry, miners, coal producers and equipment to get together and lobby for an exemption it's now.