Anthracite stack emmisions

I believe that you are right. The industry needs a voice.

I actually like the smell coming out of my chimney. Nothing like going outside on a cold morning and smelling my anthracite burning. (Of course the weather needs to be just right) I even have heard passerbys complimenting the smell while i am out in my front yard doing something.

ScubaSteve wrote:I even have heard passerbys complimenting the smell while i am out in my front yard doing something.

Did you blame it on the dog?

This is worth a watch..

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/bl ... _Film.aspx

Caused a great stir in the UK...

Not necessarily my view but I do agree that an enlightened arguments from both sides should be examined.

"We should be concerned about CO, NOx, VOC's and SO2"

CO released is highly unstable and will oxidize within 24 hours in the atmosphere to produce co2. NOx concerns are a joke, VOC's and SO2 arn't far behind.

Check http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

I used to burn 1200 gallons of #2 Oil per year ,
Ref: 4.05 tonnes CO2: 1/3 of 1200 US gallons of heating oil

Now I burn 10 Ton of Coal per year,
Ref: 8.41 tonnes CO2: 1/3 of 10 tonnes of coal

This calculator is saying that coal is nearly double the carbon footprint of Oil !

Brian

10 tons of coal is equal to about 1800 gallons of oil (BTU equivalent). Everything else being equal, you should burn 6.67 tons of coal.

Ed...

eelhc,

I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle with great interest! I'm passing it along to people I know. Amazing to see a different point of view.

MacCoon wrote:Check http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

I used to burn 1200 gallons of #2 Oil per year ,
Ref: 4.05 tonnes CO2: 1/3 of 1200 US gallons of heating oil

Now I burn 10 Ton of Coal per year,
Ref: 8.41 tonnes CO2: 1/3 of 10 tonnes of coal

This calculator is saying that coal is nearly double the carbon footprint of Oil !

Brian

CO2 is not a pollutant, NOX is and anthracite has 1/3 the NOX that oil has. As a carbon based life form, which would you rather breathe?

Many expect the incoming Obama administration to work to classify CO2 as a pollutant - an early step toward their carbon tax.

Ed...

etribuna wrote:Many expect the incoming Obama administration to work to classify CO2 as a pollutant - an early step toward their carbon tax.

Ed...

I guess they plan to tax us for breathing......

U235a4 wrote:

etribuna wrote:Many expect the incoming Obama administration to work to classify CO2 as a pollutant - an early step toward their carbon tax.

Ed...

I guess they plan to tax us for breathing......

That slays me

I guess they plan to tax us for breathing......

Think about it! That's exactly what they plan on doing. We will be taxed into living the kind of lifestyle they find acceptable.

The America we knew is gone forever! I'm just sayin!

Berlin wrote:"We should be concerned about CO, NOx, VOC's and SO2"

CO released is highly unstable and will oxidize within 24 hours in the atmosphere to produce co2. NOx concerns are a joke, VOC's and SO2 arn't far behind.

Though CO is not a big hazard outdoors, the rest on that list are outdoor air pollutants and have made life less pleasant in the forms of smog and acid rain and ozone depletors. CO2 is not a pollutant no matter what any government says. It is a gas produced by, and used by, nature in copious quantities. The rest on that list are produced in copious quantities in urban areas where their concentration becomes problematic. I am not against cleaning stack emissions as best as practically possible in an economic sense. I prefer always to analyze with a cost-benefit analysis.

I have been to smoggy cities in The People's Republic of China. It is not pleasant. The air is thick and acrid. Asthma worsens and there were few birds. Man can have a detrimental impact on environment. I definitely don't believe fossil fuels make an insurmountable one such that they need to be banned. Most pollution control is a matter of management, not banning.

eelhc wrote:This is worth a watch..

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/bl ... _Film.aspx

Caused a great stir in the UK...

Not necessarily my view but I do agree that an enlightened arguments from both sides should be examined.

Great post. Thanks.

Not your view? Really? A true believer wouldn't consider burning coal. What gives? Not enough evidence? Not enough experts?

I have thought that concensus in settling science questions was antithetical to begin with. Add to that the flawed conclusions the activists were making from the ice core data and voila, you have hype, not science.

Most of those viewpoints I have been harping about for a couple of years. I picked up most of the counterpoints from a Canadian online news source the "National Post". There was a series called "The Deniers". Here's a link to one of the articles: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... c7f723&k=0

I believe that the "medieval global warming activists" as characterized by one of the experts in the film are immoral in the worst sense of the word. They are self-deprecating, anti-human beasts. Such short sighted thinking is imcomprehensible to me. That they cannot see the life saving irreplaceable benefits of fossil fuels and would prefer the world returned to medieval culture and society is either utterly absurd or completely satanic.

The degree to which environmentalist wackos are influencing reality with conjecture is disturbing, here's a case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg

and BTW, I consider myself a conservationist.