So How Dirty Really Is Anthracite?

 
ad356
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat. Sep. 21, 2013 7:07 am
Location: north java, ny

Post by ad356 » Sat. Oct. 22, 2016 4:07 pm

im talking from an environmental standpoint. I have been burning for a couple of years and though it was pretty darn clean, like almost as clean as natural gas. no visible smoke emissions out of the chimney. I heat the barn with cord wood, when I burn that stove or my neighbors are cranking their own wood stoves you get allot of smoke, noticeable amounts. seems to me that coal burns cleaner. I have been going to truck driving school to get a CDL. the instructor said something about coal, kind of like a side discussion. well I had to say something. he gives me one of those shame on me for burning that filthy, dirty stuff. I told him how cleanly it burns and that im not burning that bituminous crap. he claims im putting dioxins into the air. who is right? is anthracite dirty? as long as its available, and presume it will be around for at least the rest of my life, I will continue to burn coal. I love the heat, the price, and the efficiency. its amazing how much heat you get from really so little product. still I wonder, is it a clean burning fuel? does it produce these really harm emissions that cannot be seen by the naked eye?


 
User avatar
Lightning
Site Moderator
Posts: 14659
Joined: Wed. Nov. 16, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Olean, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: Modified AA 130
Coal Size/Type: Pea Size - Anthracite

Post by Lightning » Sat. Oct. 22, 2016 4:17 pm

Anthracite is pretty clean relatively speaking compared to bituminous, I'm not sure how it stands against wood in this respect.

The biggest beef with anthracite is that it's mainly carbon, so it does in fact create more carbon dioxide relative to hydrocarbon fuels like feul oil, methane, propane ect.

Anthracite does also have a small (tiny) percentage of sulfur, which contributes to acid rain.

But yeah, I'm on board with you about it being a clean fuel. Just look at the smoke, what smoke? lol

 
User avatar
joeq
Member
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sat. Feb. 11, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Northern CT
Hand Fed Coal Stove: G111, Southard Robertson

Post by joeq » Sat. Oct. 22, 2016 4:23 pm

Check out a bag of Blaschac, and read the back panel. They promote Anthy as being the cleanest solid fuel out there. Especially over wood. If you buy a new wood stove, it's required by law to have a catalytic converter on it. Not so on a coal stove. I'm sure there are a few scientists, and engineers on here that can give more info than I have.

 
User avatar
StokerDon
Site Moderator
Posts: 7486
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 11:17 am
Location: PA, Southern York County!
Stoker Coal Boiler: Gentleman Janitor GJ-5, Van Wert VA-600, Axeman Anderson130 X3.
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Harman SF3500 reduced down to 3 grates connected to its own plenum
Coal Size/Type: Rice, Chestnut and whatever will fit through the door on the Harman
Other Heating: Noth'in but COAL! Well, Maybe a little tiny bit of wood

Post by StokerDon » Sat. Oct. 22, 2016 5:32 pm

Anthracite is very clean, as long as you don't move it!

This is why you have it delivered to your bin then suck it out with an auger or vac system. you only want to move it once.

-Don

 
titleist1
Member
Posts: 5226
Joined: Wed. Nov. 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by titleist1 » Sat. Oct. 22, 2016 10:07 pm

You could mention your coal stove pollutes less than a tractor trailer driven 100,000 miles per year. :lol:

 
LehighanthraciteMatt
Verified Business Rep.
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu. Sep. 29, 2016 1:02 pm
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Warm Morning
Coal Size/Type: Rice,Buck, and Nut

Post by LehighanthraciteMatt » Sun. Oct. 23, 2016 8:08 am

I wonder how he heats his home.... SO many have misconceptions. If he is using electric, power plants can use bit or oil. Or maybe he is using oil? Natural gas? really not cleaner than coal..... have you seen rivers on fire in places where they extract it... People need to stop trying to make others feel bad for their carbon footprint. If they have solar or wind power and geothermal for their home, great for them. But they shouldn't judge others!

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Sun. Oct. 23, 2016 8:22 am

If they have solar or wind power and geothermal for their home, great for them. But they shouldn't judge others!
During cold weather I need to generate well over 300,000 btu. In the valley here the wind is usually very low. Would some dipchit liberal please calculate the size of the solar field I will need Dec to March (when I need that power) in the land where the sun don't shine much. We have also come off of the sunniest summer ever (in my memory). Doing the solar numbers with a onion farmer in Pine Island he says he saved nothing but has 2 twenty year leases on his property.


 
User avatar
vermontday
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Bennington, VT
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520

Post by vermontday » Wed. Oct. 26, 2016 9:35 pm

Until we convert all our heating, transportation and manufacturing energy needs to nuclear powered electricity, we are all guilty.

That includes carbon footprint intensive solar and wind at 20-30% capacity efficiencies, natural gas, propane, oil (with its full drilling, transporting, refining, carbon footprint) and coal.

I don't feel guilty burning coal. The money I save burning coal allows me to invest in energy conservation projects in my house such as insulation and windows.

Energy conservation has a backwards ripple effect of savings. It is hundreds of times more financially and environmentally effective than trying to build new energy sources with their ripple effect of mines, ore, truck tires............

Then hopefully, someday soon, the environmentalists will realize John McCain was right when he wanted to build 45 modern, safe nuclear power plants in the U.S. to meet our needs after we have exhausted energy conservation projects.

 
User avatar
windyhill4.2
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Fri. Nov. 22, 2013 2:17 pm
Location: Jonestown,Pa.17038
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1960 EFM520 installed in truck box
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404 with variable blower
Coal Size/Type: 404-nut, 520 rice ,anthracite for both

Post by windyhill4.2 » Wed. Oct. 26, 2016 10:27 pm

How can nuclear be considered cleaner than coal ? LONG RANGE ????? Nuclear worked real good here at 3 mile island,at Chernobyl, at Fukashima . SURE. The long range of how "dirty" nuclear is has not yet totally been discovered. Coal is MUCH easier to manage than Nuclear,from start to finish.

 
User avatar
captcaper
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu. May. 29, 2008 11:55 am
Location: Northern N.H.

Post by captcaper » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 4:28 am

On a NPR show the North Carolina energy department head was talking their making wood pellets,etc. He said that Anthracite burns cleaner then wood pellets. Surprised me since most around here use pellets..

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 4:46 am

Then hopefully, someday soon, the environmentalists will realize John McCain was right when he wanted to build 45 modern, safe nuclear power plants in the U.S. to meet our needs after we have exhausted energy conservation projects.
The last time McCain was right about anything was after he fell out of his crib. Nuclear is not the way to go - that is enough for a coal board. Even France is now back peddling on this one. Think cradle to grave. Never mind the odd one blowing up with catastrophic results just think waste disposal. Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 76,430 metric tons of used nuclear fuel and with a 24,000 year half life it's just a terrible way to boil water. I am not sure coal is the answer either but until we invent a totally clean energy source it's the best for me for my lifetime. We will find a clean energy source in the next 100 years then we will have to wait 100,000 years for this nuclear stuff to decompose. Psst, 24,000 years is only the half life, it's still dangerous.

How are those solar panels on rt 7 (or is it 22) doing way down in the valley. I would love to see how much energy they will produce between now and say April. You got some real geniuses up there. Only a bunch of liberals would be that stupid.

Loved your coal handling solutions. Shame I can't use this.

 
User avatar
vermontday
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Bennington, VT
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520

Post by vermontday » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 6:33 am

Radioactive waste is an issue, but we may not have any perfect answer to energy yet.

The nuclear plants that have had safety issues are 1950's designs. Modern designs can have complete power loss without any temperature runaway.

If we build modern nuclear fission nuclear plants, with room for fusion reactors in the future, the fusion reactors would use the same infrastructure as the fission reactors. We are still 20 years away from fusion reactors, but we could at least get ready for them. It is going to take at least 20 years to get ready for an all electric energy world.

We need some type of reliable, steady base load energy source.

Then again, maybe the will never figure out nuclear fusion!

Germany has installed huge amounts of solar and wind. They are now realizing solar and wind is not the answer and have reduced funding for solar and wind.

Anyway, we are getting way off subject of the original question. Burning even anthacite coal is dirty for the environment, but not that much more dirty than oil.

 
lzaharis
Member
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun. Mar. 25, 2007 8:41 pm
Location: Ithaca, New York
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KAA-4-1 dual fuel boiler
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: former switzer CWW100-sold
Coal Size/Type: rice
Other Heating: kerosene for dual fuel Keystoker/unused

Post by lzaharis » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 10:53 am

Until we begin to utilize The molten salt reactor(thorium salt fuel) the fission reactors are
going to be with us for another ten years or so according to the researchers running thorium salt fuel reactor in continuous testing.

The thorium boiling salt reactors have a solid salt plug cast in the base of the reactor chamber that will melt if the boiler overheats to that point and the liquid salts will fall out of the reactor core and the heat will dissipate and eventually stop as a chain reaction will no longer be working-from information taken from my copy of the book "Super fuel".

The thorium salt reactors are much smaller and can be moved by truck or flat bed rail car to their destination in one unit with the current designs.

Anyway the burning of wood also has a nasty habit; it releases any radiation absorbed by the tree roots and leaves over its lifespan so............................................. it was but one more reason I did not want to deal with wood anymore but the broken nose I received made up my mind.

Leon

 
User avatar
windyhill4.2
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Fri. Nov. 22, 2013 2:17 pm
Location: Jonestown,Pa.17038
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1960 EFM520 installed in truck box
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404 with variable blower
Coal Size/Type: 404-nut, 520 rice ,anthracite for both

Post by windyhill4.2 » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 12:22 pm

Wood releases the same amount of POLLUTION being burnt or rotting in the woods. Anthracite is plenty clean if burnt in a proper coal burner.Nuclear is NOT an answer.

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Thu. Oct. 27, 2016 12:35 pm

Germany has installed huge amounts of solar and wind. They are now realizing solar and wind is not the answer and have reduced funding for solar and wind.
Anybody been to Germany in the winter .. and now they work it out? Another bunch of stoopid liberals. Pollution is measured by the EPA is not the whole answer. For instance, many respiratory therapists think mercury from HO is a major contributor to asthma in this area. Ask an epidemiologist to run correlations between allergic respiratory diseases and anthracite coal burning and they will tell you they see little cause and effect. Try running that again with HO/diesel use and whatdoyaknow - bingo. Pittsburgh 120 years ago did have a coal burning issue with dirty bituminous coal steel making. So vast XS of anything does cause problems. NEPA anthracite is as good as it gets until something better comes along --- I am looking but it sure aint nuclear.


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”