Obama and Coal

does any one know what changes if any obama wants to make for those of us that burn coal in our homes?He keeps talking about a green America.
Edd

I am pretty sure there talking about soft coal (Bituminous) not hard coal (Anthracite)

I'd have to agree with the above, at the very most you might be paying more if they institute a tax on the coal itself but most of the policies I've read indicate they will have a cap and trade system that will give the utility a "credit" to expel X amount of emissions. These credits will be auctioned off which will have a direct impact on the cost of energy right off the bat. The idea is that if they can lower their emissions these credits will be very valuable and they'll be able to trade them away to someone else that may need them which is where the flaw is. Companies may be bidding on them simply to get the credit to later sell driving the cost even further if I understand it correctly.

In his/they're eyes, coal is coal. Either way we're screwed..............

Do politicians even care about the difference between the two types though?

That is my concern.

The scariest part is that most of them probably don't know there is a difference!

cArNaGe wrote:Do politicians even care about the difference between the two types though?

That is my concern.

No Because None of them know the Differents between the two .

If you are so concerned why not do something about it? Join the Pickens plan. Point out the advantages of burning Anthracite coal in homes. It's much more energy efficient because so many of the losses in other fuels have been eliminated.

Why not write you congressman with your concerns?

Why not write Obama?

The other special interest groups will be lobbying Congress? Where's the Anthracite lobby? Bottom line there isn't one.

Let's face it...a few short years ago everyone thought King Coal was dead. Now that the cost of energy in general and oil specifically is the focus of so much attention...there seems to be some interest in coal. The environmentalists are totally dismayed over the fact that coal is having a rebirth of sorts. I don't like being lectured to by the "elite" hypocrites who fly around the world in private jets and then try to dictate policy to the rest of us....policy that fits their agenda (A Gore).
Yanche is right.....send a letter or email or both to your Congressman or Congresswoman and both US Senators in your state. As we strive to develop clean, reasonably priced alternatives to the way we make electricity coal is our way to the future....but most still see it as a smudge in our distant past. Coal consumption worldwide is about 6 billion tons....the USA accounts for 1 billion of that...China about 2.5 billion. Most of that...at least in the USA...is for electricity....90%. The few tons we all use collectively to heat our homes amounts to a pimple on an elephants butt....have you ever seen a pimple on an elephants butt? It's infinitesimally small!!

I think I read Anthracite is almost as clean as oil or nat. gas, burned in the high eff. units.

Obama is way more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.

His new energy secretary is strongly pro-nuclear power.

http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/will-the-se ... ear-energy

efo141 wrote:I think I read Anthracite is almost as clean as oil or nat. gas, burned in the high eff. units.

It produces more CO2 and less NOX. Since CO2 is not a pollutant and NOX is, I would say it is cleaner. Flyash against petroleum particulate emissions? Which would you rather breathe?

The chart I saw showed wood being the worst then bit coal and anthacite was way below being close to nat gas and oil. They also said elect was the worst because the power plants were fueled by Bit coal. How many towns/citys will have restrictions on OWBs by the end of the winter.

coaledsweat wrote:It produces more CO2 and less NOX. Since CO2 is not a pollutant

"Obama to name CO2 as pollutant"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78499

CO2 is what the Enviro Nazis have their eye on now, and as stated earlier in this thread, coal is coal to them. They could care less if it's Anthracite or Bituminous. Both produce CO2, and Al Gore told them in his unscientific movie, that CO2 is the culprit of global warming.

Frankly, I feel that enviromentally, AND economically, we need MORE Bit. burning power plants. Then, leave the anthracite for home and factory heating...... Give homeowners and companies tax incentives to heat their facilities with clean anthracite coal burners. That would leave the oil for the things that need it most: vehicles.........

For those that think coal burning power plants spew out clouds of black smoke, they've never seen one....... The exhaust leaving the stack is perfectly clear, and condenses to steam about 20 feet above the stack...... (The steam is the exhaust from the generator turbines... they exhaust up the stack to create a suction to fan the fire......)