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.
Actually coal began declining when railroads and ships moved from using that substance over to oil, then later abandoned steam all together in favor of diesel.
While there has been declines over the past century in some markets and moderate declines in overall production for some yeras the production of coal overall has had steady increase. Between about 1970 and 2008 overall production doubled with 2008 being the peak year for production.
Quote:
Finally came the Clean Air Act in 1970's which forced a change to cleaner burning fuels.
This has nothing to do with home heating. there has never been any federal regulations restricting the use of coal for heating because you don't need them. In fact I'd be more than happy to put my coal boilers particulate emissions up against any oiler boiler.t That legislation was for industry and power plants and didn't get teeth until the 1990 amendment.
People switched from coal to oil and gas because it was relatively cheap at the time and most importantly you turn the dial on thermostat.Coal is not a huge amount of work especially with a uger fed stoker but it's still some work.
Last edited by thecoalman; 10-31-2019 at 12:32 AM..
People seem to believe burning all that coal didn't affect air pollution.
Most US cities were no comparison to Eurpoean cities because heating was primarily with anthracite. Cities like Pittsburgh are another story because of all the steel mills burning soft coal. The Lackawanna Railroad even used it as marketing gimmick, google Phoebe Snow
Quote:
Origins of "spring cleaning" came about because first warm day in spring, when it was sure boilers/furnace fires could be safely allowed to go out, an orgy of cleaning began to rid homes of all the soot which had culminated during winter months.
There is no soot emitted from anthracite, there may be a fine grey ash that mostly accumulates in the bottom of the chimney and horizontal runs of flue pipe. I can show you 10 snow covered roof tops near a chimney and you would not be able to determine which ones were using gas or coal, you would be able to tell which one was using oil.
Most US cities were no comparison to Eurpoean cities because heating was primarily with anthracite. Cities like Pittsburgh are another story because of all the steel mills burning soft coal. The Lackawanna Railroad even used it as marketing gimmick, google Phoebe Snow
There is no soot emitted from anthracite, there may be a fine grey ash that mostly accumulates in the bottom of the chimney and horizontal runs of flue pipe. I can show you 10 snow covered roof tops near a chimney and you would not be able to determine which ones were using gas or coal, you would be able to tell which one was using oil.
Yeabut hard coal (anthracite) cost more, and not everyone had that kind of money. People burned what they could afford, and or get their hands on (theft from sides of or in rail yards/tracks was common), that or people scougned around tracks for coal that fell off locomotive tenders.
Regarding the Lackawanna RR, yes it did experiment with burning hard coal, and did have some sucesses. But by and large it and other RRs went back to burning bituminous or perhaps a mixture of both. This is how things remained until RRs began either switching to oil burning or diesel.
Generally steam locomotives liked coal that burned fast and hot. Hard coal does burn long (an advantage for say domestic heating/hot water, ovens, etc....), but not necessarily for motive power.
Low volatile bituminous coal has roughly 14340 btu per pound. Higher than anthracite which comes in around 12910 btu/lb. What is more given proper conditions bit coal will ignigte faster and thus begin giving up that energy quicker. Hard coal OTOH can be difficult to get going and that includes when adding fresh coal to fire.
In any even a majority of issues stemming from burning soft coal come down to boiler design and who is building/maintaining the fire.
Smokeless boilers were around since 1800's and that technology advanced into 1900's. But even with such things you cannot over come poor firing.
Smoke be it from a domestic boiler or steam locomotive is a sign of waste; it is literally coal gases not properly burnt going up the chimney.
Coal miners are getting tired of winning. At least they can consul themselves that Trump is allowing for more polluted air, water and land so we can all suffer more. MAGA.
Regarding the Lackawanna RR, yes it did experiment with burning hard coal, and did have some sucesses. But by and large it and other RRs went back to burning bituminous or perhaps a mixture of both. This is how things remained until RRs began either switching to oil burning or diesel.
Generally steam locomotives liked coal that burned fast and hot. Hard coal does burn long (an advantage for say domestic heating/hot water, ovens, etc....), but not necessarily for motive power.
The big thing here is going to be the supply, you can only get anthracite in northeast PA. You can get soft coal almost anywhere. Simple economics are going to dictate soft coal be used.
Quote:
Low volatile bituminous coal has roughly 14340 btu per pound. Higher than anthracite which comes in around 12910 btu/lb.
The highest grades of anthracite are in the 28 million range and can be as low as 4% ash. If you had a piece and shattered it you can get shards sharp enough to shave with. When they are running coal like that they even try and mix some average coal in because it can be a problem in stokers, try explaining to someone their coal sucks because it's too good. True story the one year.
Quote:
In any even a majority of issues stemming from burning soft coal come down to boiler design and who is building/maintaining the fire.
You can try and make anthracite smoke but I don't think your going to be successful. You are either going to light it or not. It can be difficult to light but once lit very difficult to put out once the fire is established. You mentioned long burn times but that is a function of the air, you cut it off to almost nothing. I've know people to get 40 plus hours out of a stove that typically might need tending every 12 hours. 6 hours if you were burning it hard.
What is that, like promise number 5,324 he has broken ? I felt bad for those hopeful coal workers who bought into his "Coal is coming back !" lie. Trump took advantage of desperate, trusting people and conned them just to get their votes.
Any sane, intelligent person knows coal is NEVER coming back, and yet, his supporters keep saying it is. Very sad to abuse people this way, hope Trump burns in Hell and they use coal to stoke the fires there.
Exactly so I dont feel bad for anyone who actually believed it would make a comeback (no one can promise that) and I dont think it is abuse to try to help the coal industry. While coal will never be what it was in the US and will continue to decrease as newer, cleaner forms of energy are used Trump did roll back regulations to help the coal industry and:
In October 2016 there were 49,500 coal miners, which has grown to 53,200 per the latest job report, an increase of 3,700 jobs.
Exports then started to decline from the 125.7 million short ton peak to 60.3 million in 2016. However, they have rebounded in the past two years and should hit about 116 million tons in 2018, based on the first nine months shipments. The export’s increase of 56 million should offset the U.S. projected decline of almost 40 million in the past two years.
Exactly so I dont feel bad for anyone who actually believed it would make a comeback (no one can promise that) and I dont think it is abuse to try to help the coal industry. While coal will never be what it was in the US and will continue to decrease as newer, cleaner forms of energy are used Trump did roll back regulations to help the coal industry and:
In October 2016 there were 49,500 coal miners, which has grown to 53,200 per the latest job report, an increase of 3,700 jobs.
Exports then started to decline from the 125.7 million short ton peak to 60.3 million in 2016. However, they have rebounded in the past two years and should hit about 116 million tons in 2018, based on the first nine months shipments. The export’s increase of 56 million should offset the U.S. projected decline of almost 40 million in the past two years.
He is not magic.
Coal mining in Appalachian region in terms of number of employed has been declining since post WWII, if not before. For one thing mine operators fed up with strikes and other labor actions invested heavily in technology that allowed greater productivity with fewer workers.
Other issue is most of the easy reachable coal in Appalachian area has long gone. This means mines must go deeper and or whatever to get at the stuff, all of which raises prices. In contrast out west in say Wyoming coal is far easily mined and for less.
Smart people have been leaving Appalachian area and or finding other local work other than coal for decades. It is only a certain subset of local demographics that for reasons known only to themselves and God firmly believe coal is "coming back".
I'll say it again; once railroads and shipping move to oil or diesel that only left heating and power generation as remaining large uses for coal. The former largely evaporated post WWII as homes/businesses moved to oil, natural gas, propane, and electricity for heat/hot water. That left power generation, steel production and export markets.
Coal is slowly but steadily decreasing in market share for power generation. That has nothing to do with Obama or anyone else per se; just simple outcome of a nation awash in natural gas.
Coal mining in Appalachian region in terms of number of employed has been declining since post WWII, if not before. For one thing mine operators fed up with strikes and other labor actions invested heavily in technology that allowed greater productivity with fewer workers.
Coal is slowly but steadily decreasing in market share for power generation. That has nothing to do with Obama or anyone else per se; just simple outcome of a nation awash in natural gas.
To say nothing of the 16 GIGAWATTS of renewable energy being installed in the USA yearly. That's the equiv of 8 2G Nuke reactors. Serious wattage....
As I've said before, if the "forgotten man" had a lick of sense he'd have held his nose and voted for a candidate who was going to institute massive job retraining programs. Coal jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to the future of "clean".
Anyone care to guess who are about to get the shaft?
A one-two punch.
First, no more good opiates....now no money. Oh well, there will be plenty of rehab centers opening up with those 100's of millions being sucked from Big Pharma for the lack of self-control of these same folks.
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.
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.
True story the one year. 
