Obama Will Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Fri. Oct. 17, 2008 10:44 pm

"The Sooty Six" here in CT just cleaned up there act about 73% IIRC. Bridgeport Station is a multi-fuel 276 megawatt generating plant that can burn powdered coal. I talked with the electrician who did a lot of work on the drives for the draft motor during the conversion.

It has a 700 HP motor for the draft blower. :shock:

 
User avatar
Adamiscold
Member
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri. Feb. 29, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Winchendon,Ma

Post by Adamiscold » Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 10:29 am

Adamiscold wrote:
SMITTY wrote:
And if QUESTION 1 passes, there will be no more income tax in this state, which will tack on another 15 Billion to that number....VOTE YES ON QUESTION 1!! :lol: :D
If that passes so many older folks are going to loss their homes because their real estate tax is going to triple. The home value's in this state will drop. The wife says that the speaker of the house Dimasi has stated that he wouldn't allow it to go through even if it passed anyways.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20081019/NEWS/810 ... SLETTERS03

 
User avatar
LsFarm
Member
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun. Nov. 20, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Michigan
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Self-built 'Big Bertha' SS Boiler
Baseburners & Antiques: Keystone 11, Art Garland

Post by LsFarm » Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 11:13 am

One important point.. human beings exhale CO2... maybe the politians should just SHUT UP !! :lol: That would reduce CO2 emissions by a LOT.

Greg L


 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 11:34 am

xackley wrote:"Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant"

The obvious can be ignored for only so long.

.
Debatable as there is many scientists that are not convinced of this, these aren't nut jobs either but prominent people in their field. Open your eyes a little a do some research. You won't find it in the mainstream media because it doesn't sell.

I believe you are missing the point, I'm not against reducing CO2 emissions. It should be done if it can be done however it should be tempered with realistic goals. if you examine Obama's energy plan you'll find he's proposing that no new plants will be built unless they meet strict carbon capture standards. As of right now this technology doesn't exist for large scale operations like a power plant... I'll repeat that... It doesn't exist. A law like this could possibly prevent any coal fired plants from being built in the future which would have to be replaced by much more expensive alternatives like solar.

A solar generation plant would never be built without government subsidization because its simply not cost effective. The fact is coal is the cheapest and most abundant form of energy this country possess's and until that changes it should be utilized to the fullest. Truthfully at this point in time I don't think it can be replaced, any legislation that could make coal no longer a viable source of energy will have disastrous consequences for this nations economy and this is not something that can be fixed overnight once the realization of the impact such legislation would have.

 
xackley
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun. Oct. 07, 2007 10:57 am
Location: Finger Lakes, NY

Post by xackley » Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 1:19 pm

Well, I searched high and low, and all the tree huggers don't think Obama is tough enough on coal. Obama historically supports coal production and usage, especially if the coal is mined in Illinois.
As to Biden's mouth moving faster than his brain, the Republicans jumped on that. But then again, how does one export Clean Coal Technology to China, if one has never built the plant. From what I can tell from the video, poor old Joe mouth missed some "clean" and some "dirty" before he said coal. And further he may have forgotten he is no longer challenging Obama for nomination on the democratic ticket, during which time he attacked Obama's stand on using more coal to help the US become more energy independent.

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 2:10 pm

xackley wrote:and all the tree huggers don't think Obama is tough enough on coal
They would only be happy if it was banned altogether. There are other factors involved with them such as the environmental damage caused by mining.
xackley wrote:during which time he attacked Obama's stand on using more coal to help the US become more energy independent.


Go read his energy policy on his site, he supports it but the stipulations he wants to impose are unrealistic. e.g technology is not at the point that it can meet the requirements he will impose. Basically he's playing both sides of the issue. He can say he supports coal all he wants but fundamentally he's on the side of no coal plants because they can't be built at this point in time under his plan. If his energy plan was implemented right now there would be a defacto ban on them.

It's like saying I support the death penalty them imposing a law that makes it impossible to carry out the sentence. What's the point of having a death penalty if there is no method to kill them? :roll:


 
blue-dasher
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon. Oct. 13, 2008 9:30 pm

Post by blue-dasher » Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 8:47 pm

Hello Folks,

I'll be receiving my first burner sometime this Winter. I would like to better understand the environmental impact of home use of anthracite. I believe that anthracite is less polluting than bituminous. How does anthracite compare with oil for home use? When I read about dirty coal and the political discussions around it, I assume that they are referring to bituminous coal for industrial purposes. So, I ignore the negative rap, thinking it does not apply to us. Can anyone refer me to some data? I've done searches, but found only one source of info, and I am unable to garner any meaning from the figures. Help greatly appreciated............

Also interested in long term projections for anthracite availability. Is one form(rice, pea, nut) more plentiful than another?

Blue Dasher

 
User avatar
coaledsweat
Site Moderator
Posts: 13763
Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Guilford, Connecticut
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Post by coaledsweat » Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 9:40 pm

I believe coal anthracite has about 6 times the CO2 and about 1/3 the NOX, about an even trade as far as naughty bits go I would say. IIRC the ash is a lot less toxic than the soot in an oil burner too.

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 10:38 pm

There's a lengthy topic here about emissions that links to documents with numbers: Anthracite Stack Emmisions

The CO2 is through the roof but other than that its not bad at all. Keep in mind you can't rely on data from a controlled environment, you'd need to apply an overall figure. There's really no where I'm aware of that can be found and it would change quite a bit depending on where you live anyway.

Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”