Interesting Coal Discussion Yesterday

User avatar
Posts: 12816
Joined: Wed. Nov. 23, 2005 9:17 pm
Stoker Coal Boiler: AHS S130 Coal Gun
Coal Size/Type: Blaschak Anthracite Pea
Other Heating: Resistance Boiler (13.5 KW), ComfortMax 75
Location: N/E Ohio, between Medina and Wadsworth

Post Sat. Oct. 21, 2017 5:46 pm

If the electric company is merely dumping the "excess" KWH's that are being back fed onto their grid (not yours) by solar, and then paying you for them at 100% of retail on top of that, it is a straight off their bottom line gift to you. And your electric company is getting the money they lose to you back from their paying customers.

Every grid tied solar user should be paying their electric company for a portion of the grids upkeep and maintenance, and paying a portion of the linemen's salaries, rather than benefiting totally and freely from it. Again, the grid you are dumping onto is not yours, and the electric company does not want your electricity, but the government is forcing them to allow you to dump it to them and then get paid well more than its worth for it.

User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun. Nov. 06, 2016 9:48 am
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks 80k output
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Jotul 507B
Coal Size/Type: Nut
Location: RI

Post Sat. Oct. 21, 2017 10:42 pm

Given the choice of believing scientists telling me more CO2 is bad for us or people here saying it is good. I choose to believe the scientists.


Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite
Location: Dalton, MA

Post Sun. Oct. 22, 2017 1:19 am

David... wrote:
Sat. Oct. 21, 2017 10:42 pm
Given the choice of believing scientists telling me more CO2 is bad for us or people here saying it is good. I choose to believe the scientists.
I'm a big fan of science, too, but I like it best when the models, conclusions, etc. actually fit the data. In the climate area, I don't think a reasonable person has to dig very deep to find serious infirmities in the narrative advanced by climate activists/alarmists. For example, the oft-repeated claim that "97 percent of climate scientists agree..." seriously misrepresents the studies upon which it ostensibly is based. If you read them, you'll see that the 97 percent corresponds to the scientists who publish the most extensively on climate matters. If you read the IPCC documentation, you'll see that the participating scientists publish lots and lots of papers that describe their work used by IPCC, and that those papers tend to be written by the same pool of authors. The real quote should be "97 percent of the few dozen climate folks whose work is used by IPCC agree with the IPCC narrative." Duh! The testimony before Congress of non-IPCC experts like Dr Roy Spencer (UAH satellite data guy), and even the documentation of the IPCC report process, make clear that IPCC is more of a political than a scientific body, and achieves its "consensus" largely by excluding dissenting views. I don't share your belief that the end product we've seen so far constitutes real science.

Indeed, the percent of "believers" drops substantially among non-IPCC scientists in various climate-related disciplines. This reflects the "inconvenient" fact that data from other disciplines - ice cores, geology, oceanography, etc. - refute the IPCC narrative regarding anthropogenic effects. IPCC assumes, but never proves, that natural climate variations consist of minor perturbations to a system that would be stable if those pesky people could only be made to stop burning fossil fuels. However, data from many sources show that the history before fossil fuels consisted of a pattern of sustained upward and downward trends, and that IPCC has done zero to distinguish a pattern of global mean temperature growth that probably now is occurring from analogous periods that have occurred frequently and naturally in the past.

While there are multiple bases for doubt regarding the IPCC findings regarding harmful long-term effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the OP and others in this thread have noted the immediate and draconian impacts of actions to forcibly curtail fossil fuel use. I share their view that a whole lot more skepticism regarding climate alarmism is warranted before we take such actions.


Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun. Oct. 14, 2012 7:52 pm
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: New Yoker WC90
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Woods and Bishop Antique Pot Bellied Stove
Coal Size/Type: Stove/Nut/Pea Anthracite
Other Heating: Munchkin LP Boiler (Back-up)
Location: Mid Coast Maine

Post Sun. Oct. 22, 2017 7:32 am

David... wrote:
Sat. Oct. 21, 2017 10:42 pm
Given the choice of believing scientists telling me more CO2 is bad for us or people here saying it is good. I choose to believe the scientists.

I agree that is why it boggles my mind that the climate change promoters want to ban carbon dioxide emissions but do not want to ban that other nasty thing that I forget the name of. In any case, even in small quantities it causes death, kills 7% of the world population every year, causes massive environmental impact, causes billions of dollars in financial loss to inhabitants every year world wide, and yet billions of dollars are spent on it by the government to ensure every community is immersed in it. Oh yeah, I remember; it is called water!

Everything I said is true. water can drown a person in very small quantities. Drowning is the 3rd leading cause of death world wide at 7% mortality rates, causes massive soil erosion, floods wipe out entire communities causing billions of dollars in loss, and yet water treatment plants supported by government sources abound.

The point is, even the most benign thing can be misconstrued by saying it is bad, water...essential to life...included. Therefore we have to beware of alarmists.

User avatar
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri. Jan. 11, 2008 4:27 pm
Stoker Coal Boiler: efm 520 stoker fitzgibbons pressure vessel
Hand Fed Coal Stove: harman, russo
Coal Size/Type: rice
Other Heating: alpine propane condensing boiler radiant floor
Location: Wernersville pa

Post Sun. Oct. 22, 2017 8:10 am

I agree that you are discussing a social economic inequality, this is different from the laws of physics. but I advocate at this point it is very feasible to acquire great amounts of energy for humankind from our primary energy provider the sun. Many others agree. Coal is the fuel from the ancient sun. Physics and mankind harnessing of it enables us to capture it like the leaves of plants. WE are getting better and better at it despite those who care to obstruct this effort How we share this bounty is where humankind historically trips over it own feet(economics ) to put it mildly.Economics are not inescapable rules like physics but the rules humankind create to direct our distribution of wealth. We currently have such shortcoming in distribution of education ,medical care, housing and other.

When i watch the meter pushing back kilowatts back into the grid it amazing.It makes more than we use those its close to equal. The electrical provider refers to the array of panels as a "co generator. " I also suggest to follow the money and the world all over is making the transition. It will take multiple generation of humankind to make the leap.
In my greater neighborhood that has a great LNG plant liquefied natural gas, it buys in summer and evaporates in winter to serve the gas grid. They have 5 acres of solar panel to provide the power to pump and liguefy the gas.
On the topic of solar panel manufacturing pollution ... -debt.html

Once a upon a time There was a agency known as the Rural Electrification Administration , it partnered with private interest to expand OUR electrical grid throughout the countryside.

The excess power produced by a homeowners solar array is likely immediately consumed and not dumped by other users of the grid. End result the generation gets reduced. The payback to a homeowner Co Generator as a array is called ,is usually calculated at the end the year , and governed by each state. IN this CT array the reimbursement annually is "averaged lowest calculated wholesale rate" of the electrical provider , not the retail rate.
The homeowner cogenerator must be a monthly connection fee as do all other users of the grid.

The equipment cost I described in previous post was without tax rebates, though they were taken , one cannot take your own labor as a tax rebate.
I have another solar energy task today ........ gathering of black walnuts before the squirrels.
I also have a efm 520 and 6 tons of coal in my bin .

Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”