So How Dirty Really Is Anthracite?
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?
- Lightning
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 14669
- Joined: Wed. Nov. 16, 2011 9:51 am
- Location: Olean, NY
- Stoker Coal Boiler: Modified AA 130
- Coal Size/Type: Pea Size - Anthracite
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
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
- joeq
- Member
- Posts: 5743
- Joined: Sat. Feb. 11, 2012 11:53 am
- Location: Northern CT
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: G111, Southard Robertson
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.
- StokerDon
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 7496
- 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
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
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
-
- 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
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!
-
- 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
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.If they have solar or wind power and geothermal for their home, great for them. But they shouldn't judge others!
- vermontday
- Member
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 8:27 pm
- Location: Bennington, VT
- Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
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.
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.
- 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
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.
-
- 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
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.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.
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.
- vermontday
- Member
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed. Oct. 22, 2008 8:27 pm
- Location: Bennington, VT
- Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2378
- 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
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
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
- 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
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.
-
- 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
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.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.