# Considering Coal AND The Carbon Neutral Debate



## tjnamtiw (May 29, 2011)

I have two Quad pellet stoves but have often said here that, if I had coal available, I would switch to a coal stoker in a second.  I also question those in eastern Pa who are considering pellet stoves why they don't consider modern coal burning stoves.  For those on the fence, here is the suppler that my brother in law uses for his new stoker.

AA130FIREMAN wrote:
South Tamaqua Coal Pockets phone # (570)386-5445

804 W Penn Pike
Tamaqua, PA 18252-5658

Give them a call and then compare the price to pellets using the many cost comparison charts available.


----------



## Dune (May 29, 2011)

Burning pellets helps the earth. Burning coal is destroying the earth.


----------



## The Radiator (May 29, 2011)

Coal came out of the earth, its not going to destroy it.  Man will do it all by himself.  I burnt pea coal in two different stoves, a Sudiac and then a surdiac/jotul.  They heat much better than a pellet stove but are difficult to control and a lot dirtier.  Both stoves were the hopper type and if they went out were alot of work to get going again.  Pellets are much more convenient and the stove can go on and off with a stat.  I still have my second stove in the garage, didn't even consider putting it in the house we are in now.  I can remember having to open the windows because it would cook you out of the house on a warmer day.  I do remember having to purchase only about 1.25 tons for a season vs 3 ton of pellets.  Coal is cheaper to burn for sure but wood pellets are way more convenient.


----------



## Centurion (May 29, 2011)

tjnamtiw.
There is one very important thing to consider with coal. One, is the ash. One third the volume of coal results in ash.  The thought alone of having to dump smelly coal ash once a day is enough to make me stay a pellet burner.  Another thing to consider is the black mess of cleaning it.  It is a very messy chore to clean coal stoves and boilers compared to the pellet burning.  Also, the dust that comes up in pouring pellets in the hopper is not BLACK!  When they bag coal, they bag it wet to help control the black dust.  That water can really mess up the stoker slide feeder plus it will cause rust, yuck!!  How do I know??  I owned one.  Coal may be a cheaper fuel but it still needs to be shipped by truck. 

Stay with pellets tjnamtiw.  I'm certain you won't regret it.

John


----------



## hossthehermit (May 29, 2011)

A friend of mine has one of the new types, it's 2-3 years old he loves it, I'm impressed after seeing it run, don't know where you get this 1/3 coal volume is ash crap from, he dumps his once a month.


----------



## Singed Eyebrows (May 29, 2011)

If I had cheap anthracite coal thats what I would burn. I'd probably use a Hitzer(self feeding top load) stove instead of a boiler for simplicity. I would not burn soft coal unless it was free. Randy


----------



## jpd989 (May 29, 2011)

I have a hand fired DS Machine wood and coal stove. I have and still do burn anthracite coal. I like the fact it will burn for 12 to 24 hours on a full load of coal. Depending on the outside temps. The coal i get ranges from 10 to 13 percent ash. And its only as dirty as you make it. If you are careful there is little ash and dust. I have mine in my basement, and if it got to dusty or dirty I would hear about it from the wife.


----------



## pen (May 29, 2011)

The Radiator said:
			
		

> Coal came out of the earth, its not going to destroy it.  Man will do it all by himself.



Yes, we will make the world uninhabitable by humans one way or another, but in the event that is going to take a while it doesn't hurt to try and keep things as low impact as possible.

At the end of the day the coal is worse for the globe than the pellets.  Pellets come from carbon that is part of the current (living) carbon cycle.  Coal uses carbon that has been out of the cycle for millions of years thereby increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.  At the time it was in the atmosphere, our planet was much like Venus (a very uninhabitable place).

As far as the idea of burning coal, I live in / near coal mines here in Pa and many have switched to pellets because they are cleaner in the house.  

A good place to head to w/ more coal burning experience than here is www.nepacrossroads.com

pen


----------



## tjnamtiw (May 30, 2011)

Centurion said:
			
		

> tjnamtiw.
> There is one very important thing to consider with coal. One, is the ash. One third the volume of coal results in ash.  The thought alone of having to dump smelly coal ash once a day is enough to make me stay a pellet burner.  Another thing to consider is the black mess of cleaning it.  It is a very messy chore to clean coal stoves and boilers compared to the pellet burning.  Also, the dust that comes up in pouring pellets in the hopper is not BLACK!  When they bag coal, they bag it wet to help control the black dust.  That water can really mess up the stoker slide feeder plus it will cause rust, yuck!!  How do I know??  I owned one.  Coal may be a cheaper fuel but it still needs to be shipped by truck.
> 
> Stay with pellets tjnamtiw.  I'm certain you won't regret it.
> ...


The coal I burned for about 10 years was less than 10% ash so I don't know where you come up with 1/3...???~~~  Like someone else said, it's only as messy as you make it on the cleanup.  I NEVER had a problem.  Smelly coal ash????  These two statements make me wonder what the H you were burning.  

As far as water on the coal goes, it isn't water.  Many breakers coat the coal in a light spray of heating oil to keep the dust down.  You can also go to the breaker with your  pickup and get a load of coal at very reasonable costs. 

Look at the new coal stoves made around Reading, Pa and you will see that they are nothing like the older versions.


----------



## tjnamtiw (May 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Burning pellets helps the earth. Burning coal is destroying the earth.



I don't really understand how using our natural resources is destroying the earth..  Maybe you better move that comment over to the radicals in the other discussion group.  

China sure doesn't care about ruining the earth as they are on a ten year plan to build a coal fired electric plant every week for 10 years.  Somehow I think that will out-'destroy' the earth more than a few coal burning heaters here.  Oh, we are going to sell the coal to them too.......................


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (May 30, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> The Radiator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The one thing that folks forget about pellets is the use of them is predicated on removing nature's atmospheric scrubbers and a large CO2 sink from the system.  In short there is no method of burning that is neutral in any form. 

But that having been said the view that CO2 as a major player in doing in the planet is a bunch of malarkey.  One would be better served by considering the influence of atmospheric water vapor and what influences the hydrological cycle (hint it isn't CO2 which is likely the reason the models always diverge from actual temperature readings.)


----------



## Dune (May 30, 2011)

SmokeyTheBear said:
			
		

> pen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This would only be true if trees were being cut for the sole purpose of making pellets. If pellets are made from wood waste, which is from trees grown for purpose and harvested in a sustainable manner, then the opposite is true. Making pellets and burning then for heat and displacing the use of fossil fuels with said pellets is actualy somewhat carbon negative. Additionaly, if the wood waste were not made into pellets but allowed to decompose, the result would be the release of methane gas, a greenhouse gas some 24 times as powerful as CO2.


----------



## Dune (May 30, 2011)

tjnamtiw said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue TJ. I thought we cleared that up a long time ago.

Furhtermore, just because a communist asian nation is doing something bad for the earth, that does not make it O.K. for us to do it, given there is a choice. 
If one were elderly, infirm or extremely poor, I could see burning coal.


----------



## RIDGERUNNER30 (May 30, 2011)

I live in coal country and myself  a underground coal miner, I'am thankful that god put coal in these hills were i live, because without it, I would be able to give my family the nicer things in life, I don't think coal is destorying earth, god put it here for us to use and we have let these green people tell us that the earth is warming up and this past winter i believe it snowed in every state but two of them, I myself burn wood because i can get it for free and there is so much of it around and i believe thet coal will cost much more in the future due to all these regulations that the epa and those crazy green people are trying to put in place, put coal heat is some of the best heat you can have and super long burn times, I know china is buying every ton of coal we can ship them and our country is playing second fiddle while these green people try to find another place to put up another wind fan to save the earth. we need to focus on getting our country back to work and creating jobs, going green will drive us to depression.


----------



## Dune (May 30, 2011)

RIDGERUNNER30 said:
			
		

> I live in coal country and myself  a underground coal miner, I'am thankful that god put coal in these hills were i live, because without it, I would be able to give my family the nicer things in life, I don't think coal is destorying earth, god put it here for us to use and we have let these green people tell us that the earth is warming up and this past winter i believe it snowed in every state but two of them, I myself burn wood because i can get it for free and there is so much of it around and i believe thet coal will cost much more in the future due to all these regulations that the epa and those crazy green people are trying to put in place, put coal heat is some of the best heat you can have and super long burn times, I know china is buying every ton of coal we can ship them and our country is playing second fiddle while these green people try to find another place to put up another wind fan to save the earth. we need to focus on getting our country back to work and creating jobs, going green will drive us to depression.



God also put polio and cancer on the earth. Don't worry, your job is secure. Even if we stopped burning coal it's use as a chemical building block will never stop.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (May 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> SmokeyTheBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A lot of trees are being cut and debarked for exactly the purpose of turning them into pellets.   In addition to this the bark is also mulched to used as a moisture retainer

In fact the amount of methane released only by biomass burning is more than the net annual increase in atmospheric methane levels.

So do not assume that biomass burning results in just CO2 being released. 

So once again there is nothing neutral about burning wood pellets.   The carbon neutral line is a line of bull.


----------



## Dune (May 30, 2011)

SmokeyTheBear said:
			
		

> A lot of trees are being cut and debarked for exactly the purpose of turning them into pellets.   In addition to this the bark is also mulched to used as a moisture retainer
> 
> In fact the amount of methane released only by biomass burning is more than the net annual increase in atmospheric methane levels.
> 
> ...



Umm, sorry but you left out one major factor which ruins your argument; roots. As much as 45% of the mass of a tree is underground, a true carbon sink even if the tree is burned. For this reason, pellets are not just neutral, but actualy carbon negative compared to fossil fuels.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (May 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> SmokeyTheBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The roots decay producing methane which is released.  It isn't sequestered unless it gets deeply buried (see those wetlands (which over a long time span one obtains coal from) and discover they are the largest source of methane emissions).  The other thing that you haven't figured out is that burning wood in general isn't even carbon dioxide neutral.

Dune the methane released is almost twice the annual increase.   You should see what plain old wood burning does.

The last time I did the division the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was some 222 times that of methane and just to add to the fun water vapor still leads the list and also that while methane is some 25 times worse than CO2 as a GHG its effects are shorter lived than CO2.


----------



## Dune (May 30, 2011)

SmokeyTheBear said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If methane didn't get trapped underground, there wouldn't be natural gas (methane) deposits all over the continent. 

The thing you keep missing is that burning wood or pellets is carbon neutral compared to burning fossil fuels.  Burning wood in Florida in the summer would not be carbon neutraL.


Further, and most important, much of the carbon is not released as methane from the wood upon decay, under the ground. It is simply carbon held in the soil, not in the atmosphere.


----------



## hossthehermit (May 30, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> SmokeyTheBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*HELLO*, something is carbon neutral, or it isn't. It's not "carbon neutral compared to" something else. It's like "just kinda pregnant, but not compared to her".


----------



## pen (May 31, 2011)

Meanwhile back at the ranch, while the Lone Ranger was still polishing silver, Tonto cleverly disguised as a door knob came off in the ranger's hand..... 

While the off topic argument here is valid (and I too took place in it) we are getting far off of the original posters request for info. 

Any further posts should be to aide in the OPosters situation or else a new thread should be created in the green room.

If a new thread is created I'd be happy to move those posts which are related to that thread.

pen


----------



## tjnamtiw (May 31, 2011)

pen said:
			
		

> Meanwhile back at the ranch, while the Lone Ranger was still polishing silver, Tonto cleverly disguised as a door knob came off in the ranger's hand.....
> 
> While the off topic argument here is valid (and I too took place in it) we are getting far off of the original posters request for info.
> 
> ...



EXACTLY, we all know Dune is a tree hugger and can't or won't admit that others could  be right.  I was the OP and merely posted some info where those previous posters from the coal regions could find a source for coal or at least consider it as a more cost effective alternative to the rising cost of pellets.  From there things got too BS'd with untruths and way off topic.  Those topics belong over on the Ash Can or Green zone.


----------



## Dune (May 31, 2011)

No point starting a thread in the green room, it has all been covered before. Deniers don't change their minds because of an internet discussion.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (May 31, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> SmokeyTheBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually the methane that gets trapped is rarely from tree roots in the forest those get the conversion of the wood to methane via termites, ants, and various bacteria and fungi.   You have to get the carbon mass well buried to remove the action of natures scavengers.

The other thing about harvesting wood for any purpose is that you remove atmospheric scrubbers from the environment.   In other words you destroy sinks.


----------



## Dune (May 31, 2011)

Starting thread in green room. 

Be obliged if you move the relevant posts, Pen. Thanks.


----------



## Delta-T (May 31, 2011)

"carbon neutral" is a buzz slogan...its still a time equation. CUt a tree, plant a tree, you achieve neutrality in ~50 yrs. We will never be able to get neutrality with anything we have to extract from the ground. Our planet, in its current state, cannot support the level of vegetation it did a few million years ago (even if it could, we are constantly repurposing useful land). No one can argue about the power of coal..its pretty available, and energy dense, but I, personally, have a moral objection to it. Its somewhat dangerous to mine, its somewhat dirty to handle,and its somewhat impactive to the local environment to mine. On the plus side...how many other "rocks" burn so damn hot eh? Pretty impressive stuff. If it fits your needs, then use it, its already being taken out of the ground, no stopping that...wonder what the long term price stability is (just thinking out loud here). Power and Industry really like coal.


----------



## Fsappo (May 31, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> Burning pellets helps the earth. Burning coal is destroying the earth.



So is driving a car and using electricity.  At least burning coal lessens the dependence on oil and supports local industry.


----------



## Dune (Jun 2, 2011)

Franks said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Burning pellets doesn't lessen dependence on oil and support local industry?


----------



## RIDGERUNNER30 (Jun 3, 2011)

lets go burns some coal baby! china burning it


----------



## Dune (Jun 3, 2011)

RIDGERUNNER30 said:
			
		

> lets go burns some coal baby! china burning it



http://www.medicinenet.com/mercury_poisoning/article.htm


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jun 4, 2011)

RIDGERUNNER30 said:
			
		

> lets go burns some coal baby! china burning it


China will soon be burning OUR COAL that we refuse to burn for 'environmental reasons'.  Do you actually think China gives a crap about the environment?  AND those are our stockpile of natural resources!

Where is the sense in that?  Tree huggers just don't get it when the coal gets burned anyway AND we lose our future sources of energy.  Kind of like forbidding us to drill in the Gulf but letting China drill there and give to $2billion to Brazil to drill for oil for china.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jun 23, 2011)

i think "carbon neutral" as jake says is not achieved with any solid fuel combustion. so in essence he is correct.

however, comparing coal to pellet "environmentally" is no comparison. emmission rates from a modern certified pellet stove are so very low when compared to coal, also taking into consideration , pellet fuel is "non sequestered" carbon meaning its part of this period of the planets "life" not from the distant past as with coal (and oil). these trees, if allowed to rot on the ground will in the end release roughly the same amount of carbon as if burned. difference is the time scale , a tree may take years to decompose completely. pellets in a stove seemingly go faster (especially when they are expensive, right?) but even still its the same carbon either way.

im with my "liberal tree hugging" buddy Dune on this one. until technology comes around that can negate the effects of non sequestered carbon, coal will continue to be a far less "green" fuel


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jun 23, 2011)

Hug those trees but your 3 tons of coal burning per year means diddly squat to China burning 3,000,000,000 TONS per year NOW.  Your not saving the earth one darn bit, sorry to say, but to each his own.  If you live in the Eastern part of Pa., you can today get a ton of good coal from the breaker in Tamaqua for $167.  Plug that into any of the energy calculators to see the difference.  It's a no brainer if you are sensible.


----------



## Steve Z (Jun 28, 2011)

There is no such thing as carbon neutral if you are burning anything.  It's almost an oxymoron!   I burn anthracite coal and I'd challenge any pellet stove to show that it's emmisions are less.  Anthracite makes no smoke, no creosote, and only emits CO.  Yes there are ashes of maybe 8-10% in good coal but when I burned wood I had just as many.  I used to clean the chimney every season with wood and rake the creosote from around the oven in the cook stove every month.  Now, I never have too.  
At the end of the season I unplug the coal stoves and use my shop vac to suck up any fly ash in the pipes. That's it.  
My stoves are both from the early 20th century.  The cookstove from 1909 and the cylinder backburner from 1920.  The cylinder stove is very efficient and burns the coal to a powdery ash. This was the height of coal burning technology and I've yet to see a modern box stove compare.  
That said, anyone who is using electricity in the USA, has an electric water heater, a fridge, etc. is using coal whether you know it or not.  Half the electricity in the country is made with coal.  On average you're using about 2 tons worth a year unless you are totally off the grid and generate your own.  Wouldn't that be nice!


----------



## Centurion (Jul 9, 2011)

<<That said, anyone who is using electricity in the USA, has an electric water heater, a fridge, etc. is using coal whether you <<know it or not.  Half the electricity in the country is made with coal.  

Exactly, Thanks for making our point.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-04-03/...missions-nitrogen-report-details?_s=PM:NATURE


----------



## Fsappo (Jul 14, 2011)

Sometimes folks will do stuff to eleviate their own guilt.  They will then project their guilt on other folks to dilute it.   Kinda like Christianity.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 14, 2011)

Franks said:
			
		

> Sometimes folks will do stuff to eleviate their own guilt.  They will then project their guilt on other folks to dilute it.   Kinda like Christianity.



HARR!!  Ya, I think this thread was started so he could make "hug those trees" type statements.


----------



## Steve Z (Jul 14, 2011)

Centurion said:
			
		

> <<That said, anyone who is using electricity in the USA, has an electric water heater, a fridge, etc. is using coal whether you <<know it or not.  Half the electricity in the country is made with coal.
> 
> Exactly, Thanks for making our point.
> 
> http://articles.cnn.com/2000-04-03/...missions-nitrogen-report-details?_s=PM:NATURE



And what exactly is your point?   I dare say the anthracite coal I burn contributes  less particulates and emmisions  (only CO) than your pellets.


----------



## woodchip (Jul 14, 2011)

Centurion said:
			
		

> <<That said, anyone who is using electricity in the USA, has an electric water heater, a fridge, etc. is using coal whether you <<know it or not.  Half the electricity in the country is made with coal.



A lot of coal is used here for electricity too. 

Plans are in place for carbon capture so the coal useage will be greener than before:
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...for-carboncapture-power-stations-1673141.html

However, the only true carbon neutral way forward is to be cold in Winter (whilst China burns more and more fossil fuels)................ 

It's not easy being smug when you are freezing to death...........  ;-)


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 14, 2011)

always remember to account for the "true" cost of things. Burning your anthracite in your stove, on its own, is pretty clean. Its the mining thats not clean. Keep in mind also that anthracite is a very dense and clean coal, and most in the world are burning bituminous, which is much dirtier. I also wouldn't venture out on the limb of saying "burning coal only makes CO". There's a lot of stuff in coal, whether you see it or not. If it were THAT clean you could crush it up and filter water through it. I wouldn't try that trick, would you? Carbon neutral is a time game, not quite an oxymoron, but really close. I regard it more as a "comparative" science concept.


----------

