U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-05-2009, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,351,806 times
Reputation: 948

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by [LEFT
CometVoyager[/LEFT];6842033]If you want the best bang for your buck and the cleanest source of energy for a home energy system it has to be Anthracite Coal! No other energy system in New England or for that matter [LEFT]imho[/LEFT] any where on the planet provides you with efficiency and an environmentally friendly way to heat or cool your home!: ok:
There a full bucket of factually incorrect statements -- economical, environmentally friendly, efficient, NOT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2009, 09:31 AM
 
40,830 posts, read 42,230,750 times
Reputation: 17093
rlchurch you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. I run a forum for homeowners that use anthracite and my family has been in the anthracite business since 1922. The retail side, hence my username. I may know a little about it...

Anthracite is and has been the most economical fuel to heat your home in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area. Costs will escalate as you get further away. At current costs locally (about $160 per ton delivered) oil for example would have to be 90 cents a gallon. You can do your own cost comparisons with this spreadsheet, you will of course have to substitute the local fuel costs but even if you had to pay $300 per ton which would be more common in place like Maine its still cheaper than oil, natural gas or even wood pellets. Also note the efficiency rating is wrong as well so be sue to adjust that, I'd suggest a minimum of 80% Coal stokers run between 80 and 90% efficiency.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/heatcalc.xls

If you want a real world exmaple I already mentioned I heat about a 4000 sq. foot home including hot water year round for about $1500. The 4000 sq ft does not includes the unfinished basement that stays reasonably warm. It's "unheated" but there is enough radiant heat to keep it "sweater warm" during the coldest days.


Environmentally speaking anthracite is the highest rank of coal and nearly pure carbon. CO2 aside it's one of the cleanest fossil fuels you can burn other than natural gas. It does not have the higher emissions associated with bit. coal.

If for example you're using electric in your home to heat you are doing much more damage to the environment than me because of a variety reason but most specifically because I have the most efficient delivery system from source to heat. The coal is mined nearby, processed locally and delivered a few miles to my home. As my boiler runs at almost 90% efficiency there is very little wasted energy compared to electric produced by coal because of inefficient plants and inefficiencies of the electric grid.

Natural Gas, oil and other fuels require a lot of energy to get it to your home but I have no numbers on quantities but it would be interesting to find out how they stack up to anthracite.

Is your face hot? Note the nice blue flame, no smoke or soot even when idling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Harrisonville
1,831 posts, read 2,145,300 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Give me break you know as well I do a nuclear plant is not going to appear overnight. Could take 2 decades before completion, all the dam legal hurdles put up by environmentalists could take a decade alone to overcome.

Edit: just to add building a renewable energy plant is a no brainer when someone else is paying the bill namely the American taxpayer.

There you go again. All you manage to do is make your own cause a laughingstock with statements like this "all the dam legal hurdles put up by environmentalists". What do you want to do, coalman? Promote sound energy policy, or just gartuitously insult people? So you're saying Congress, The President and the Courts have no role in our nuclear policy? It's solely the work of the "environazi's" hiding under your bed? If that isn't what you are saying then you are a cheap shot artist, and nothing more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 11:27 AM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,981,082 times
Reputation: 3961
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
. . . . I have little knowledge or understanding of solar technology but I do not see how it can be more then an intermittent resource just like wind.........
Upfront, as a point of order, you did not hear me say "solar" -- because in many folks mind, that is PV with all its variations. I am talking Solar Thermal Electric generation. VERY different animal than PV.

Solar Thermal is best (mho) as a Peak Load system -- as we discussed in the Night Wind thread, Time-of-Use is everything regarding profitable operations. While you are correct that Solar (of any sort) is a daytime thing (unless you burden it with expensive storage) -- that daytime is the exact time of Peak Use. And as it produces most everyday -- especially well in the Summer Time Daily Peak -- the daily intermittent exactly meets the daily intermittent demand.

Here is some backgrounder, if of interest

This is a site that does a fairly good backgrounder.

Ausra.com

Goggle is sponsoring Solar Thermal (Steam) to Electricity at “Cheaper Than Coal” Prices (an industry benchmark), as well.

Powering a clean energy revolution

To see a good spread of other operations

The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Concentrating On The Important Things - Solar Thermal Power
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 11:29 AM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,981,082 times
Reputation: 3961
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometVoyager View Post
If you want the best bang for your buck and the cleanest source of energy for a home energy system it has to be Anthracite Coal! No other energy system in New England or for that matter imho any where on the planet provides you with efficiency and an environmentally friendly way to heat or cool your home!: ok:
Ah, yes! Breath Deep the Rich Coaly Goodness!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Gary, WV & Springfield, ME
5,826 posts, read 8,752,309 times
Reputation: 17288
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
So-called "clean" coal plants: are they really? Here's one example of why they aren't...the left-over ash. Even if the stack discharge of CO and other greenhouse gases is minimal, there is still the huge problem of disposing with the leftover ash...
No matter what poosition a person decides to take on any subject, there will always be something on the internet to support every theory. That is what has transpired here. Not everything you read is true and certainly, not everything on the Internet is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Don't read and judge based on one instance. Read everything and be informed.

Coal is the best thing that has ever happened to mondern man: green or otherwise
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,970 posts, read 8,787,715 times
Reputation: 5408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Solar Thermal is best (mho) as a Peak Load system -- as we discussed in the Night Wind thread, Time-of-Use is everything regarding profitable operations. While you are correct that Solar (of any sort) is a daytime thing (unless you burden it with expensive storage) -- that daytime is the exact time of Peak Use. And as it produces most everyday -- especially well in the Summer Time Daily Peak -- the daily intermittent exactly meets the daily intermittent demand.

Ausra.com
Yes I understand the difference. I see on the link you provided that they "store heat" at night. I know a roughly 1000Mw steam plants requires @ 6 million pounds of steam an hour to run at full load. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but that's a whole bunch of BTU to store and I can't understand how they'd do it. As far as peak loads go yes,typically you see 2 peaks during the day. Usally in the morning say @ 0500 to 1100 then again in the afternoon @ 1600 to 2200. I do not doubt the links position that they can make energy but when they say "Utility scale" in my mind that means a BIG plant. When I see one go commercial that can make 900MWs an hour I'll but stock......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,351,806 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
rlchurch you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. I run a forum for homeowners that use anthracite and my family has been in the anthracite business since 1922. The retail side, hence my username. I may know a little about it...

Anthracite is and has been the most economical fuel to heat your home in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area. Costs will escalate as you get further away. At current costs locally (about $160 per ton delivered) oil for example would have to be 90 cents a gallon. You can do your own cost comparisons with this spreadsheet, you will of course have to substitute the local fuel costs but even if you had to pay $300 per ton which would be more common in place like Maine its still cheaper than oil, natural gas or even wood pellets. Also note the efficiency rating is wrong as well so be sue to adjust that, I'd suggest a minimum of 80% Coal stokers run between 80 and 90% efficiency.
Isn't this kind of like saying that hydro-power is really cheap if you live next door to the Hoover Dam? How scalable is this resource? If we decide to heat all 100 million homes in the US how much will it cost?

I'll have to see independent laboratory analysis before I believe a coal furnace runs 90% efficient.


Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Environmentally speaking anthracite is the highest rank of coal and nearly pure carbon. CO2 aside it's one of the cleanest fossil fuels you can burn other than natural gas. It does not have the higher emissions associated with bit. coal.
You failed to mention particulates, sulfur, and NOx. That "other than CO2" is kind of defining away the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If for example you're using electric in your home to heat you are doing much more damage to the environment than me because of a variety reason but most specifically because I have the most efficient delivery system from source to heat. The coal is mined nearby, processed locally and delivered a few miles to my home. As my boiler runs at almost 90% efficiency there is very little wasted energy compared to electric produced by coal because of inefficient plants and inefficiencies of the electric grid.
Already covered. At a minimum it's not a scalable solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Natural Gas, oil and other fuels require a lot of energy to get it to your home but I have no numbers on quantities but it would be interesting to find out how they stack up to anthracite.
We are talking about heating my home, and a home in Colorado, and a home in Washington state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Is your face hot? Note the nice blue flame, no smoke or soot even when idling.
There's plenty of particulate, NOx and SOx. And the highest amount of CO2 per BTU of any fuel. Now lets put that side by side with a high efficiency heat pump run off of renewable energy:

Slightly higher cost for heat
Zero CO2
Zero SOx
Zero NOx
Zero Particulate

How cheap is your coal fired boiler if you have to pay $50/ton for the CO2 emission and how much will it cost if you have to put a bag house on for particulate and a scrubber on for the sulfur? It's "cheap" because you are polluting for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,351,806 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Upfront, as a point of order, you did not hear me say "solar" -- because in many folks mind, that is PV with all its variations. I am talking Solar Thermal Electric generation. VERY different animal than PV.

Solar Thermal is best (mho) as a Peak Load system -- as we discussed in the Night Wind thread, Time-of-Use is everything regarding profitable operations. While you are correct that Solar (of any sort) is a daytime thing (unless you burden it with expensive storage) -- that daytime is the exact time of Peak Use. And as it produces most everyday -- especially well in the Summer Time Daily Peak -- the daily intermittent exactly meets the daily intermittent demand.
If you pair solar thermal with wind in a portfolio of resources, you have a reliable non-polluting 24/7 resource. The same thing is true of PV BTW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 02:19 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,981,082 times
Reputation: 3961
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
Yes I understand the difference. I see on the link you provided that they "store heat" at night. I know a roughly 1000Mw steam plants requires @ 6 million pounds of steam an hour to run at full load. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but that's a whole bunch of BTU to store and I can't understand how they'd do it. As far as peak loads go yes,typically you see 2 peaks during the day. Usally in the morning say @ 0500 to 1100 then again in the afternoon @ 1600 to 2200. I do not doubt the links position that they can make energy but when they say "Utility scale" in my mind that means a BIG plant. When I see one go commercial that can make 900MWs an hour I'll but stock......
Since there were a couple of links there, I am not sure which one you are referring to. Everyone sort of has to allude to some storage -- even when it is not the intent. There are just so many (morons -- dunno?) who do not follow the Peak Only "cherry picking" you and are chatting, if you give a nod to some storage they quiet down and you can get back to work.

The "real" storage plants use molten salt (at 1000 + F) to run all night -- but again, as we are chatting about how to make money AND clean, cheap electricity -- so we can dismiss that. Please also understand that I have Non-disclosure Agreements involved, so I cannot do details on any specific system. Suffice it (I hope) to say most S-T heat-up a little slow and cool down a lot slower, so they "coast" into the evening, which is (for marketing purposes) sort of like "storage." (again for the morons who have to hear the word storage involved or start squawking).

As far as Your Math. Bravo! (applause, applause)

Yep. Why try to store heat like that? Cherry pick the high rates of the day, and coast into the evening. (ka-ching) Our -- Texas / ERCOT, Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and other SW areas I design for -- Big Peak Time is Air Conditioning -- that comes close to your late afternoon one you describe. For us, S-T happens to hit A/C time square on.

As for what "BIG" or utility scale means -- I too, hate undefined BS terms like that. The Public Domain real numbers are this -- an acre (43,560 sq ft) will produce about 250 kW. Some folks do some tuning, this and that, and claim a little higher, but that is pretty much the quick and dirty math number. Expand that out to a Sq. Mile (640 acres) and you get around 160 MW. If that is "BIG" or Utility Scale, that is what folks are usually talking about.

After that it is just a Capitalization Recovery, Operations and Maintenance Budget, and Profit Model -- So the real money making "trick" is how cheap you can install that functional, low maintenance, Sq. Mile. Just a Wal-Mart way of thinking.

On my end, I am presently working on scaling downward -- for that the math take the 250 kW and divide by the 43560 sq ft involved -- comes out about 5 watts a sq ft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top