Anthracite stack emmisions

There have been several mentions on the forum that the emmissions from burning anthracite are "more green" if you will than burning oil. I was wondering if anyone has any actual data comparing their emmisions. I'd sure like to shut up my mouthy neighbors who all burn oil. Thanks.

I don't have any actual data but it's been said that Anthracite is the second cleanest burning fossil fuel......second only to NG

Here's a link to an EPA study. Some of this stuff is greek to me but you may understand it better. Hope the link works
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference ... haneke.pdf

I did about 10 minutes of google research, whatever that is worth, and came up with the following numbers....

The carbon dioxide lbs / 1,000,000 btu's of heat from anthracite coal is 227. Surprisingly, other types of coal have less CO2 emissions

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quart ... e/co2.html


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.

http://www.earthlab.com/carbon-calculator.html
http://www.energykinetics.com/heatingfu ... isons.html


I don't know the assumptions made to get to these numbers. I guess the most accurate comparison would be to see how many gallons of fuel oil / propane we would typically burn vs. how many tons of coal and see how the CO2 compares. Of course, that does not take into consideration the energy expended to get the fuel to your furnace. Drilling, transportation, processing and final delivery of oil uses more energy than it takes to get local coal to our doorsteps. It also does not take into consideration other emissions, just CO2.

Anyway, I've got my 5+ tons of coal (about 3 years worth) and I'm not giving it back!!

I wish it were so. Anthracite is cleaner in some ways and dirtier in others.


coal compared to oil:
co2 emissions are heavier (co2 isn't technically a pollutant)
nitrogen compounds are less (oxides of nitrogen causes acid rain & smog)
sulphur dioxide is less (causes acid rain) although it is being removed from oil more aggressively
co emissions are heavier (co is a poisonous gas)
water vapor is much less, near zero (while not technically a pollutant, it is a greenhouse "gas" and may be a bigger culprit in global warming than co2, if that theory is correct.)

I didn't tell my neighbors I was burning coal. Nobody knows. I don't care; they won't care, especially if they don't know. After all, they didn't tell me they were burning oil, gas, wood, or pellets, did they?

FYI, neither the stack effluent, nor the ash, of anthracite is considered hazardous by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It's legal. Burn all you want!

More info

http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/co ... tivity.pdf

When someone comments to me about my carbon footprint, pollution, or acid rain from burning coal, I look them right in the eye and ask "How much was your electric bill last month?" When they answer $120, I say "YOU just bought $60 worth of the more polluting bituminous coal. I burn anthracite which is actually quite clean." If they continue down the I pollute more then they pollute road, I tell them to unplug their refridgerator and I'll listen to them complain.

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.

Does Anthracite burn cleaner out of the stack, no color or odor?

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..

Cool, what the neighbors don't know wont hurt them

I couldn't say which is cleaner, but if you clean an oil burner and a coal burner and inhale any of the crap, I know the soot from the oil burner will make you REAL sick. That won't happen with anthracite.

Richard S. wrote:We need Yanche in on this discussion. Frankly even with accurate numbers its too hard to quantify the real total. SNIP ...

I don't know of any good studies on pollutants resulting from residential burning of Anthracite coal. The closest study that might apply were the studies done for the EPA on the Reading Company coal to oil plant proposed for Pottsville, PA. You have to understand the combustion process in a power plant is much different that the combustion in a residential stove, boiler or furnace. The power plant operates at much hotter temperatures, introduces other gases and or powers to make the plant more efficient and/or less polluting. I haven't a technical clue which is less polluting.

I do know residential use of Anthracite coal directly for heating is far more efficient that using Bituminous coal to make electricity and then using electric resistance heating elements to heat your home. Because you use much less coal the pollution you generate is also much, much less. Only about 1/3 of the coals Btu content of electric power generating plants gets to your home.

Residential Anthracite coal home heating needs to be a part of a national energy plan. I don't see a way to even get it on the radar screen. There's no central Anthracite spokesman. All the other energy groups, Bituminious coal, oil, solar, wind, etc have their lobby groups. Anthracite has none. Can anyone point me to a Web site that promotes Anthracite coal?

Well Yanche I would have to say that this is thew only site as far as anthracite goes.

Anthracite reserves make up such a small amount of our nations coal reserves. I can't get a bulk load now of rice coal. I don't personally want it promoted. If someone is smart enough to find it on their own, great. I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry doing it or the price will skyrocket and it will be even less available.