Windmills The Latest Man Made Environmental Hazard! (charge, contract, difference)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Yes, could you please tell us more about the environmental ills of windmills. The owners of this coal mine need a lesson.

For every ton mined from that operation they need to set aside X amount of dollars for reclamation. In addition to that they also pay a tax on every ton they mine that goes towards reclamation of old abandoned mines that they have no responsibility for. Some of the abandoned sites especially here in Pennsylvania date back to before the turn of the previous century. They were created long before any regulation or such a tax or mandates for clean up post production were in place. Ironic but new coal mining is actually beneficial to the environment in that regards as it supplies revenue for sites that may never see any money for clean up otherwise as there is no one to hold responsible.. Pennsylvania is expecting billions over the next decade from this fund.

avondale plymouth - Google Maps

That pit you see and all the surrounding area has since been resurfaced with funds from tax collected on current coal mining activity. Not sure of the exact date but mining stopped there at a minimum of 80 years ago. Without those funds sites like this would never be reclaimed.


----edit-------

Just add that Google sat image is a bit dated, they are actually working on it when it was taken. You can see that if zoom in and look at the left or right side of the pit. It was actually much larger.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

I'm too lazy to research it, but I'll bet you the burning of coal preceded the building of windmills.

Hmm interesting question, couldn't answer it from a "all time" perspective but within the US coal use didn't start in earnest until the latter part of the 1800's at the beginning of the industrial age when bituminous coal from Western PA fired many industries and the Anthracite from Eastern PA was used to keep houses and people in cities warm. Certainly wind was used more for power prior to that than coal.

Coal needs a specific environment to burn, you can't just throw it on a fire and expect it to work. It wasn't until well into the late 1800's that it was realized anthracite could be used. Up until that point it was assumed it worthless rock. It's a much harder coal and without a very specific environment won't burn. Even today they make stoves labeled dual fuel wood/coal and although they work fine with soft coal they fail miserably where anthracite is concerned.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Hmm interesting question, couldn't answer it from a "all time" perspective but within the US coal use didn't start in earnest until the latter part of the 1800's at the beginning of the industrial age when bituminous coal from Western PA fired many industries and the Anthracite from Eastern PA was used to keep houses and people in cities warm. Certainly wind was used more for power prior to that than coal.

Coal needs a specific environment to burn, you can't just throw it on a fire and expect it to work. It wasn't until well into the late 1800's that it was realized anthracite could be used. Up until that point it was assumed it worthless rock. It's a much harder coal and without a very specific environment won't burn. Even today they make stoves labeled dual fuel wood/coal and although they work fine with soft coal they fail miserably where anthracite is concerned.

My comment here is off topic here... but, your talk of coal reminds me of my youth. My family lived for a time on a small farm. The house was heated by coal. In the basement was the coal furnace and an auger that fed coal from a covered bin that had to be filled every couple of days (as well as the burner box 'clinker' removed from the fire chamber). It was all fascinating to me at the time. Filling that thing in the dead of a cold, snowy winter actually brings back fond memories! Coal was, at one time, very commonly used around here since we are fairly close to coal mining country. But, I'm not even sure if you could get coal for heating around here any more. A few mines still operate for export and the coal-fired power plant 100 or so miles south.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Subsidy per million Btu(2007 dollars):

Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $0.03
Ethanol/Biofuels $5.72

I'm just throwing the petroleum up there for comparison as it doesn't need subsidy. So what does that equate too?

There's about 130,000 BTU's in 1 gallon of Diesel or 7.6 gallons to 1 million BTU's. In other words we're spending about 75 cents on subsidies for ethanol that could have been derived with no subsidy to oil.

I'll note that report doesn't specify if the corn subsidies farmers receive is included and if it isn't the cost would significantly more.

Enjoy paying $50/ton for the CO2. It's a done deal.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Coal was, at one time, very commonly used around here since we are fairly close to coal mining country. But, I'm not even sure if you could get coal for heating around here any more. A few mines still operate for export and the coal-fired power plant 100 or so miles south.

By you comments about the clinker you were using soft coal, rarely used for home heating anymore for variety or reasons such as it's inconvenient because of the clinkers which make it hard to automate and adds a lot of work, the smoke and the smell.

None of those problems exist with anthracite so it's still used and actually gaining popularity. That's why eastern US cities like New York, Philly etc didn't have the problems with smog at the turn of the century like others. They even used it as a gimmick to entice people to certain line of trains.

Phoebe Snow (character) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rail travel around the year 1900 was not pleasant. After a long trip on a coal-powered train, travellers would frequently emerge covered in black soot. The exception to that rule were locomotives powered by anthracite, a clean-burning form of coal. The Lackawanna owned vast anthracite mines in Pennsylvania, and could legitimately claim that their passengers' clothes would still look clean after a long trip.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Enjoy paying $50/ton for the CO2. It's a done deal.

You along with everyone else will be paying that charge, and you can enjoy your wind power when it triples in cost.

Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html - broken link)


---edit----

Just to add I find it humorous you're actually gloating about the added costs and burdens yet will continue to pontificate in other posts it won't cost anything. Make up your mind.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

You along with everyone else will be paying that charge, and you can enjoy your wind power when it triples in cost.

Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html - broken link)


---edit----

Just to add I find it humorous you're actually gloating about the added costs and burdens yet will continue to pontificate in other posts it won't cost anything. Make up your mind.

Not mine I'm locked in. BTW Austin has about the cheapest electricity rates in Texas. And the program you're referring to is not wind.

Enjoy eating $50/Ton cost for your CO2. Not going to be passed on to consumers.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Not mine I'm locked in. BTW Austin has about the cheapest electricity rates in Texas.

The people who originally signed up for the Austin program were also locked in and enjoyed good rates, not anymore. Regardless of what happened in Austin to derail their program when you're paying the full costs without subsidies you may have a point about your electric rates but until then it's laughable.

Say it with us again class S-U-B-S-I-D-Y.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The people who originally signed up for the Austin program were also locked in and enjoyed good rates, not anymore. Regardless of what happened in Austin to derail their program when you're paying the full costs without subsidies you may have a point about your electric rates but until then it's laughable.

Say it with us again class S-U-B-S-I-D-Y.

When did the Feds end the $9 billion per year in oil, gas and coal subsidies?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

When did the Feds end the $9 billion per year in oil, gas and coal subsidies?

I didn't say they didn't and your point is? If you want to argue about less than 1/2 cent subsidy on 1 gallon of diesel fuel or 44 cents on about $100 worth of electric generated by coal according to that document from 2007 feel free.

As far as I'm concerned drop all subsidies, the coal and petroleum industry certainly don't need them. I'll be glad to pay 1/2 cent extra on liquid fuels or have half a dollar added to my electric bill each month to make up for the federal subsidies. Then I'll pull out my deck chair and bag of popcorn and watch ethanol, wind and solar sink faster than the Titanic.