Post by: Manedwolf on January 17, 2008, 10:20:30 AM
They'll never be carbon-neutral now!
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 10:24:43 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 10:25:57 AM
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on January 17, 2008, 10:28:53 AM
A lot of people don't realize that.
Post by: charby on January 17, 2008, 10:29:16 AM
What kind of fire would this produce?
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 10:34:55 AM
Brad
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 09:40:18 AM
Post by: mfree on January 17, 2008, 09:42:05 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 17, 2008, 09:47:17 AM
Well, if the thing is 100% electric powered, and you produce that electricity in a nuclear plant, then the thing contributes zero emissions.
Unfortunately, the same greenies who've tried shoving electro-mobiles down our throats have also been instrumental in putting the clamp on more nuclear power. Chances are only a small percentage of the power used the charge the batteries was from nuclear. That's not including the power used for, and the waste generated by, manufacturing battery packs which contain a cornucopia of nasties.
Brad
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on January 17, 2008, 01:04:23 PM
What kind of fire would this produce?
Post by: grampster on January 17, 2008, 02:10:03 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 17, 2008, 02:17:08 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 02:17:24 PM
That weenie, Breck Girl Edwards says he'll make sure we never build another nuclear power plant in America.
Are you sure? Can that be verified? Because if true, it's absolutely stupid. I mean stoooopid. WTH does he propose we do for electricity?
Post by: K Frame on January 17, 2008, 02:34:53 PM
Electricity?
The stupid SOB will tax people so heavily that they won't be able to afford electricity.
As for Edwards' stance on nuclear energy, he didn't come out and say that he'll make sure we never build another nuke plant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-MPuF2WIVQ
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 17, 2008, 02:35:21 PM
Post by: K Frame on January 17, 2008, 02:36:10 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/john-edwards-re.html
Post by: drewtam on January 17, 2008, 06:45:42 PM
Unfortunately, the same greenies who've tried shoving electro-mobiles down our throats have also been instrumental in putting the clamp on more nuclear power. Chances are only a small percentage of the power used the charge the batteries was from nuclear. That's not including the power used for, and the waste generated by, manufacturing battery packs which contain a cornucopia of nasties.
Brad
The winds of change are blowing...
...from Sierra Club member:
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307266567/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200631321&sr=1-1
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 07:02:05 PM
OTOH, maybe he was just pandering to a blissninny anti nuker. Who knows.
Post by: geronimotwo on January 18, 2008, 02:41:54 AM
Quote
They'll never be carbon-neutral now!
carefull, someone might think you're protesting the use of plastics in the automotive industry!
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2008, 04:13:24 AM
Post by: K Frame on January 18, 2008, 04:55:56 AM
Which brings us to the question...
If an electric car pollutes, and the greenies aren't offended, does a baby seal die in Canada?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 18, 2008, 05:49:00 AM
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2008, 06:35:12 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 06:37:47 AM
Kinds looks like the extinguishers are standing there watching saying, "OOO, man! What a FIRE!"
Well, spraying an ABC extinguisher, even CO and halon, on a lithium fire will just make it angry. Any exposed metal will react violently and explode at you.
Class D Copper Powder is the only kind that can put out a lithium fire.
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2008, 06:43:17 AM
How about sand? We considered that class D when I was in the Nav.
Post by: RocketMan on January 18, 2008, 05:01:49 PM
If an electric car pollutes, and the greenies aren't offended, does a baby seal die in Canada?
Yes.
Post by: brimic on January 19, 2008, 05:38:31 AM
Quote
WTH does he propose we do for electricity?
Lets look at the viable alternatives other than *gasp* nuclear:
-Coal: Evil, nasty, and puts mercury in our lakes. Its also a resource controlled by the evil mining companies.
-Wind: windmills kill birds and even worse, mar the scenery for the Kennedys.
-hydroelectric: disrupt the delicate mating cycle of salmon.
-Natural gas: Almost the perfect alternative though its expensive and causes much higher heating bills for the subhumans out in the square states who use this to heat their homes.
Yep, we're screwed.
Post by: brimic on January 19, 2008, 05:39:58 AM
Quote
Yay lithium fire!
mmmmmm pretty reddish colored inextinguishable flames.
Post by: Tallpine on January 19, 2008, 07:02:01 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 19, 2008, 03:12:41 PM
Actually, many of them have caught fire. I was reading a related article and this is the third or fourth one, including a park service vehicle that burnt the store/cafe at the Presidio.
I would like to see a source. Do you have a link to the article? I am awfully suspicious since I have heard some good things about the EV1 series. I am sure though, that you will post a link which will help us decide.
Post by: Paddy on January 19, 2008, 04:38:04 PM
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 19, 2008, 05:16:06 PM
If only we could lob it into the sun without risking it blowing up and sprinkling the countryside. Maybe we could drop it onto enemy nations...
Still, I see it as the only sane solution thats currently feasible.
Post by: K Frame on January 19, 2008, 05:27:48 PM
It's pointless, Tecumseh. These people HATE anybody who tries to conserve anything. Yet they call themselves 'conservatives'. Go figure.
I think a truer statement would be that Conservatives are all for conservation...
But not at the cost of sanity and all of the various and sundry unintended consequences (in some cases, some of them quite severe) that come from the mad liberal dash to conserve so as to show fealty with poor mother earth.
Anyone who DARES question the "Green Agendists" as to the true long-term consequences of the "solution" is met with stuttering horror are emotionally distraught wailing about how we "just don't understand" and how we "hate the earth."
One of these days I hope to move back to Pennsylvania. When I do, I most certainly will do my part to conserve home heating oil.
By burning coal.
Post by: Firethorn on January 19, 2008, 05:41:08 PM
The only problem I see with Nuclear energy is the waste. I mean, I realize they've created that gigantic underground vault in Utah or whatever, but eventually that sucker will fill up...it still is a serious issue that needs addressed.
A single gigawatt nuclear reactor today produces about a single train car of waste a year. It's not that big of a problem. In comparison a coal plant can go through two hundred+ car trains of coal a day.
Quote
If only we could lob it into the sun without risking it blowing up and sprinkling the countryside. Maybe we could drop it onto enemy nations...
Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel. It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day. After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.
If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels. That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 19, 2008, 05:42:51 PM
It's pointless, Tecumseh. These people HATE anybody who tries to conserve anything. Yet they call themselves 'conservatives'. Go figure.
I think a truer statement would be that Conservatives are all for conservation...
But not at the cost of sanity and all of the various and sundry unintended consequences (in some cases, some of them quite severe) that come from the mad liberal dash to conserve so as to show fealty with poor mother earth.
Anyone who DARES question the "Green Agendists" as to the true long-term consequences of the "solution" is met with stuttering horror are emotionally distraught wailing about how we "just don't understand" and how we "hate the earth."
One of these days I hope to move back to Pennsylvania. When I do, I most certainly will do my part to conserve home heating oil.
By burning coal.
Pellet coal stoves are pretty awesome. Cheaper to run than wood pellet, and the coal comes damp in the bag so it doesn't blow powder all over the room when you pour it in the hopper.
People here are starting to install pellet coal furnaces with a hot-water-supply loop boiler as well. They just have to fill the hopper twice a week, and it's cheaper than natural gas.
Also, they use low-sulfur coal, so your neighbors won't show up with torches and pitchforks.
Post by: Paddy on January 19, 2008, 05:44:11 PM
Post by: K Frame on January 19, 2008, 05:46:14 PM
Nukes are the way to go. Coal, not so much. Unless you want 'black lung disease' listed as the cause of death on your check out certificate.
Everyone dies from something.
Life is a fatal illness.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 19, 2008, 05:47:39 PM
Post by: charby on January 19, 2008, 05:56:23 PM
Quote
Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel. It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day. After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.
If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels. That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.
If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels. That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.
I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.
On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.
-C
Post by: Manedwolf on January 19, 2008, 05:57:35 PM
Quote
Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel. It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day. After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.
If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels. That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.
If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels. That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.
I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.
On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.
-C
That we know of. Depends how deep we go. Remember, a good bit of the earth's core heat could well be from decaying radioactives. That's a LOT of material.
Post by: Firethorn on January 19, 2008, 06:20:59 PM
I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.
In the USA. Reprocessing is alive and well in France and Japan.
Matter of fact - improper processing lead to the deaths of a couple japanese workers a few years ago - of course, they used a steel bucket rather than the $$$ equipment intended for the processes, and stuffed enough material into the bucket for a dozen rounds or so.
The result was that critical mass was researched, radiation levels spiked and they got cooked.
I feel sorry for them, but then again, I think they were deserving of a Darwin award. After all, they were workers in a nuclear processing facility, violated regulations in a rather extreme way, and mixed stuff together that anybody trained in nuclear physics should be able to predict might go critical.
Quote
On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.
It'll last centuries even using current technology. In that time we might be able to crack fusion, get solar & wind to be actually work, etc... If nothing else, we can make reactors that use other trans-uranics, and there's a lot of them around.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 19, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.
-C
-C
Heh, what are we saving it for?
Post by: Tallpine on January 20, 2008, 06:36:22 AM
Anywhere on earth, if you drill down far enough, it is extremely hot. Pump water down, get steam back out to run generator turbines.
Although after a couple centuries of that, I can see the greenies complaining about the danger of "global cooling"
Post by: RocketMan on January 20, 2008, 07:20:24 AM
Other than cost, what about geothermal?
Anywhere on earth, if you drill down far enough, it is extremely hot. Pump water down, get steam back out to run generator turbines.
Although after a couple centuries of that, I can see the greenies complaining about the danger of "global cooling"
Anywhere on earth, if you drill down far enough, it is extremely hot. Pump water down, get steam back out to run generator turbines.
Although after a couple centuries of that, I can see the greenies complaining about the danger of "global cooling"
What the "greenies" are really afraid of, is anyone turning a profit off of energy production. Or making a profit off anything else, for that matter.
Post by: K Frame on January 20, 2008, 08:25:14 AM
Something like 80% of homes and businesses in Iceland are heated by geothermal means.
Post by: Tallpine on January 20, 2008, 11:51:03 AM
Quote
Geothermal is really only feasible in areas where there is near-surface thermal activity.
Maybe right now ... but given higher fossil fuel costs and improvements in drilling technology, why not? You just have to drill deep enough.
Post by: Firethorn on January 20, 2008, 03:09:13 PM
Quote
Geothermal is really only feasible in areas where there is near-surface thermal activity.
Maybe right now ... but given higher fossil fuel costs and improvements in drilling technology, why not? You just have to drill deep enough.
Maybe so, but when you'd have to dig so deep that you'd displace more than the building's volume, it's not very economical. Many other solutions that are much cheaper at that point.
Maintenance would also kill.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 20, 2008, 03:33:55 PM
I ask because the new high school here in town is going geothermal, running 96 pipes to a depth of 300 feet:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/268072&ntpid=2
Quote
Second Sun Prairie school to use geothermal system
The Sun Prairie School District is set once again to tap into the Earth's natural body temperature to warm and cool its newest elementary school.
Creekside Elementary, located on the city's south side, will be the second of three Sun Prairie schools the district plans to heat and cool using a geothermal system.
Geothermal technology has seen "an explosion of growth in the last seven years or so in Wisconsin," said Manus McDevitt, principal with Sustainable Engineering Group in Madison. "It's coming to a point now where electricity and gas prices are so high ... that really the argument for geothermal becomes stronger and stronger. For school districts it makes a lot of sense."
The systems can cut schools' energy use by 10 percent to 40 percent, McDevitt said.
The Madison, Verona and Monona Grove school districts also have or plan to incorporate geothermal technology into school construction. Evansville and Fond du Lac high schools have used the technology for several years.
Geothermal systems work by running water through hoses in underground pipes, where it is exposed to the Earth's constant temperature of between 50 and 55 degrees. Heat pumps in the schools then further heat or chill the water, which is used to warm or cool classrooms.
When Sun Prairie first started using a geothermal system at Horizon Elementary, which opened in fall 2005, maintenance workers had some concerns about operating a totally different system and a boiler was installed as a backup to the geothermal unit, said Phil Frei, deputy district administrator for the Sun Prairie School District.
More than two years later, the district is more confident in the technology and doesn't plan to have a backup boiler for Creekside.
"I think that we're over that hurdle," Frei said. However the district hasn't decided if the new high school, also slated to use geothermal technology, will have a backup boiler or not.
Across Wisconsin, about a dozen schools use or plan to incorporate geothermal technology including Fort Atkinson, which retrofitted three existing schools and plans to do one more.
But that's a far cry from Iowa, which has more than 100 schools built or converted to use a geothermal system, said Leo Udee, who heads up the geothermal information office for Alliant Energy.
Cost is the No. 1 concern for school districts.
A commercial geothermal heating and cooling system can cost 5 percent to 20 percent more than a traditional boiler system, McDevitt said.
However, the district can see a payback seven to 10 years, depending on the cost of natural gas and electricity, he said. "Every year you're saving money because it's using 10 (percent) to 40 percent less energy," he said.
To help with the additional upfront costs of the Horizon Elementary geothermal system, the district received a $70,000 grant from Sun Prairie Water and Light.
More incentives are expected from the utility and the state's Focus on Energy program, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, for Creekside and the high school, but the amounts are still being determined, he said.
Typically in a geothermal system, about 75 percent of the heat needed to warm a building comes from the Earth and the other 25 percent is added by electricity, McDevitt said. "We have 75 percent free heat from the Earth."
The Sun Prairie School District is set once again to tap into the Earth's natural body temperature to warm and cool its newest elementary school.
Creekside Elementary, located on the city's south side, will be the second of three Sun Prairie schools the district plans to heat and cool using a geothermal system.
Geothermal technology has seen "an explosion of growth in the last seven years or so in Wisconsin," said Manus McDevitt, principal with Sustainable Engineering Group in Madison. "It's coming to a point now where electricity and gas prices are so high ... that really the argument for geothermal becomes stronger and stronger. For school districts it makes a lot of sense."
The systems can cut schools' energy use by 10 percent to 40 percent, McDevitt said.
The Madison, Verona and Monona Grove school districts also have or plan to incorporate geothermal technology into school construction. Evansville and Fond du Lac high schools have used the technology for several years.
Geothermal systems work by running water through hoses in underground pipes, where it is exposed to the Earth's constant temperature of between 50 and 55 degrees. Heat pumps in the schools then further heat or chill the water, which is used to warm or cool classrooms.
When Sun Prairie first started using a geothermal system at Horizon Elementary, which opened in fall 2005, maintenance workers had some concerns about operating a totally different system and a boiler was installed as a backup to the geothermal unit, said Phil Frei, deputy district administrator for the Sun Prairie School District.
More than two years later, the district is more confident in the technology and doesn't plan to have a backup boiler for Creekside.
"I think that we're over that hurdle," Frei said. However the district hasn't decided if the new high school, also slated to use geothermal technology, will have a backup boiler or not.
Across Wisconsin, about a dozen schools use or plan to incorporate geothermal technology including Fort Atkinson, which retrofitted three existing schools and plans to do one more.
But that's a far cry from Iowa, which has more than 100 schools built or converted to use a geothermal system, said Leo Udee, who heads up the geothermal information office for Alliant Energy.
Cost is the No. 1 concern for school districts.
A commercial geothermal heating and cooling system can cost 5 percent to 20 percent more than a traditional boiler system, McDevitt said.
However, the district can see a payback seven to 10 years, depending on the cost of natural gas and electricity, he said. "Every year you're saving money because it's using 10 (percent) to 40 percent less energy," he said.
To help with the additional upfront costs of the Horizon Elementary geothermal system, the district received a $70,000 grant from Sun Prairie Water and Light.
More incentives are expected from the utility and the state's Focus on Energy program, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, for Creekside and the high school, but the amounts are still being determined, he said.
Typically in a geothermal system, about 75 percent of the heat needed to warm a building comes from the Earth and the other 25 percent is added by electricity, McDevitt said. "We have 75 percent free heat from the Earth."
Post by: K Frame on January 20, 2008, 03:57:50 PM
Tallpine is talking geothermal of the kind that will boil water and return steam, the kind that you get in Iceland or other volcanic transvergence (right term? Not sure anymore) zones where you have very hot rock very close to the surface.
This kind of geothermal will produce steam that is hot enough to do actual work, as in spin turbines that will generate electricity.
Gewehr, the kind of geothermal that that school is going to use is COMPLETELY different. It is using the thermal mass of the earth, which at a few feet underground is pretty steady at about 54 degrees F, to provide heating and cooling. In essence, the school is putting in heat pumps that are very similar to air exchange heat pumps, but which in this case are ground exchange heat pumps. In winter, you pump latent heat out of the earth, and in summer you pump heat into the earth.
That kind of geothermal is EXTREMELY different from Icelandic geothermal. You generally can't get enough heat to boil water to create high pressure steam.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 20, 2008, 04:01:56 PM
Post by: K Frame on January 20, 2008, 04:19:28 PM
THAT was my ENTIRE point!
Drilling deeply enough to heat water to where it creates steam capable of doing work simply is not economically feasible in most of the world.
"We called 'em heat pump systems in Florida, I suspect it's the same concept that will be heating/cooling the new high school."
Yeah, they're called heat pumps just about everywhere.
There are two common kinds -- air source, and ground source, aka geothermal.
And yes, there is absolutely NO doubt that the school is using ground source heat pump technology. There are three ways of installing such a system...
1. Water body exchange. You use a large lake and run tubes through it.
2. Ground loop. You dig trenches and lay the exchange piping in the trench, and then cover it up.
3. Water well. A lot like water body, only done vertically.
No matter how you cut it, a geothermal exchange system is two things (if properly designed and installed): 1: extremely efficient, providing lots of heating and cooling capacity for extremely reasonable energy consumption, and 2: expensive as all hell to install compared to other heating/cooling systems.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 20, 2008, 05:26:23 PM
Geeze, sorry.
I'll delete my posting.
Post by: K Frame on January 20, 2008, 07:07:16 PM
When you say "pellet coal," do you mean rice coal grind, or are there stoves that use ground coal held together with a binder to form pellets?
I'm trying to talk my mother into a stove that will burn rice coal, but she wants no part of it.
Post by: Tallpine on January 21, 2008, 06:27:13 AM
Suppose they built a geothermal plant in someplace like Livingston MT, near the Yellowstone Caldera - not that far down to very hot rock, and/or they could drill at an angle to get under the park itself.
BTW, I heard on the radio this morning that there is an effort to convert Israel to all electric vehicles. They say they have a car with quick-change batteries and a range of 124 miles. If the Israelis can build an electric car that can go clear across the country on one charge, why can't we?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 21, 2008, 06:37:30 AM
Hey Manedwolf,
When you say "pellet coal," do you mean rice coal grind, or are there stoves that use ground coal held together with a binder to form pellets?
I'm trying to talk my mother into a stove that will burn rice coal, but she wants no part of it.
When you say "pellet coal," do you mean rice coal grind, or are there stoves that use ground coal held together with a binder to form pellets?
I'm trying to talk my mother into a stove that will burn rice coal, but she wants no part of it.
It looked like actual pellets, but I'm not sure. All I know is that it comes in a plastic sack like woodstove pellets, and the coal is dampened so it doesn't make a mess when you dump the bag. A local shop has a coal stove that looks like the currently popular woodpellet stoves, forced air, automatic auger and all, only it's burning coal pellets, not wood pellets. (actually, looking at a local vendor, it is indeed called "anthracite rice".)
Here's a local vendor's page about their freestanding coal stoves and basement furnaces:
http://www.completeheatnh.com/Alternative_Heating_Systems.html
Here's the local article about some:
Quote
Article published Dec 5, 2007
More warming to other heat sources
By ASHLEY SMITH, Telegraph Staff
asmith@nashuatelegraph.com
Every third day or so, Mike Henning, a professional chimney sweep, treks down the L-shaped stairway to the basement of his 3,000-square-foot Nashua home, where an eight-ton stack of coal nearly touches the ceiling.
He grabs a 40-pound bag from the pile which is about 10 feet by 6 feet wide and 6 feet high and snips off the top with a pair of scissors. He dumps the sack of tiny black coal pellets into the auger of a stove.
"That's one," he said during Wednesday's fill.
He repeats the process with a second bag, a third and then a fourth. He grabs a bag, snips off the top and adds fuel to the fire. He closes the lid and empties the ash pan.
"And I'll be back on Saturday," Henning said.The process takes just a few minutes, but it's more effort than would have been necessary two years ago, when heating Henning's home was as simple as pressing a button on the thermostat. But Henning said he's willing to work the extra 15 hours a year or so to save a bundle of cash.
Fed up with the increasing cost of propane, Henning converted his entire home to a heating system powered by coal a form of energy rarely used these days but cheaper than more popular sources like oil, natural gas or electricity.
Henning is a rarity in this state.
Only two out of 1,000 households in the state use coal as a primary heating source, according to 2004 data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
That works out to fewer than 2,000 households in the entire state.Coal is not considered an environmentally friendly heating option, although Henning uses a type of hard coal called anthracite, which burns cleaner than soft coal common to New England.
But coal is cheap. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that a set amount of heating one million BTUs could be generated by coal for a cost of $5.35, whereas it would cost $14.39 with wood, at least $27.65 with propane and $30.86 with electricity, unless a "geothermal" heat pump is used.
Henning said his yearly cost for coal around $1,500 is equivalent to what he was spending per month on propane during the coldest months of the year. And in two years, he's already recouped the $5,000 spent on the stove and ductwork, he said.
It's tough to say if other Granite Staters have been making the same switch in the past few years during a period when the price of oil has skyrocketed. Joseph Broyles of the energy and planning office said his department has no way to keep track of that.
But switching to coal isn't the only way to save a few bucks on home heating.
Nancy Milliard, 58, of Merrimack, found similar savings 16 years ago when she switched from electric heat to a wood stove. Wood is a far more popular heat source in New Hampshire than coal.
Shortly after moving into her townhouse in 1990, Milliard got a $2,000 electric bill, she said. A call to the electric company revealed the home used an electric heat pump a device made popular in the '80s that has not proven efficient or cost effective in cold winter climates.
Milliard said a neighbor introduced her to the idea of using a wood stove for heat after finding her sitting on the steps crying over the bill. Milliard said several people in the neighborhood have switched to using wood pellets as a fuel source to save money.Millard soon began making payments on her first wood stove and has since purchased two smaller units to supplement the heat, she said.
"The cost of the pellets is a lot, lot less," Milliard said. "It's a lot less costly than the electric."
About 10 percent of New Hampshire households rely on wood heat, making it the third most common source behind oil and natural gas, according to the latest data available from the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, which are survey results from 1999.
More than half the households in New Hampshire heat their homes with oil and around 14 percent use natural gas. Coal is by far the least common fuel trailing electricity by more than more than 4 percent.
Henning, who was introduced to the possibility of coal heat by a customer whose chimney he swept, is so pleased with his decision, he considers himself the coal distributor's best form of advertising.
His propane company was not quite as thrilled. Henning's only use for propane these days is cooking. He got a call from the company after his January bill was $6.72.
After realizing Henning was not going to meet his contractual consumption minimum, the company began charging him a $180 per year rental fee for his propane tank.HEATING FUEL COMPARISON This chart shows how much the federal government estimates it would cost to generate a specific amount of heat using different fuel types and types of heaters.
Fuel Type
Heating Appliance Type
Fuel Cost Per Million Btus
Fuel Oil (#2)
Furnace or Boiler
$22.83
Electricity
Furnace or Boiler
$32.49
Geothermal Heat Pump
$9.35
Baseboard/Room Heater
$30.86
Natural Gas 1
Furnace or Boiler
$17.82
Room Heater (Vented)
$21.38
Room Heater (Unvented)
$13.90
Propane
Furnace or Boiler
$27.65
Room Heater (Vented)
$1.83
Wood 3
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Pellets
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Corn (kernels)
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Kerosene
Room Heater (Vented)
$27.50
Coal
Furnace/Boiler/Stove
$5.35
More warming to other heat sources
By ASHLEY SMITH, Telegraph Staff
asmith@nashuatelegraph.com
Every third day or so, Mike Henning, a professional chimney sweep, treks down the L-shaped stairway to the basement of his 3,000-square-foot Nashua home, where an eight-ton stack of coal nearly touches the ceiling.
He grabs a 40-pound bag from the pile which is about 10 feet by 6 feet wide and 6 feet high and snips off the top with a pair of scissors. He dumps the sack of tiny black coal pellets into the auger of a stove.
"That's one," he said during Wednesday's fill.
He repeats the process with a second bag, a third and then a fourth. He grabs a bag, snips off the top and adds fuel to the fire. He closes the lid and empties the ash pan.
"And I'll be back on Saturday," Henning said.The process takes just a few minutes, but it's more effort than would have been necessary two years ago, when heating Henning's home was as simple as pressing a button on the thermostat. But Henning said he's willing to work the extra 15 hours a year or so to save a bundle of cash.
Fed up with the increasing cost of propane, Henning converted his entire home to a heating system powered by coal a form of energy rarely used these days but cheaper than more popular sources like oil, natural gas or electricity.
Henning is a rarity in this state.
Only two out of 1,000 households in the state use coal as a primary heating source, according to 2004 data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
That works out to fewer than 2,000 households in the entire state.Coal is not considered an environmentally friendly heating option, although Henning uses a type of hard coal called anthracite, which burns cleaner than soft coal common to New England.
But coal is cheap. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that a set amount of heating one million BTUs could be generated by coal for a cost of $5.35, whereas it would cost $14.39 with wood, at least $27.65 with propane and $30.86 with electricity, unless a "geothermal" heat pump is used.
Henning said his yearly cost for coal around $1,500 is equivalent to what he was spending per month on propane during the coldest months of the year. And in two years, he's already recouped the $5,000 spent on the stove and ductwork, he said.
It's tough to say if other Granite Staters have been making the same switch in the past few years during a period when the price of oil has skyrocketed. Joseph Broyles of the energy and planning office said his department has no way to keep track of that.
But switching to coal isn't the only way to save a few bucks on home heating.
Nancy Milliard, 58, of Merrimack, found similar savings 16 years ago when she switched from electric heat to a wood stove. Wood is a far more popular heat source in New Hampshire than coal.
Shortly after moving into her townhouse in 1990, Milliard got a $2,000 electric bill, she said. A call to the electric company revealed the home used an electric heat pump a device made popular in the '80s that has not proven efficient or cost effective in cold winter climates.
Milliard said a neighbor introduced her to the idea of using a wood stove for heat after finding her sitting on the steps crying over the bill. Milliard said several people in the neighborhood have switched to using wood pellets as a fuel source to save money.Millard soon began making payments on her first wood stove and has since purchased two smaller units to supplement the heat, she said.
"The cost of the pellets is a lot, lot less," Milliard said. "It's a lot less costly than the electric."
About 10 percent of New Hampshire households rely on wood heat, making it the third most common source behind oil and natural gas, according to the latest data available from the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, which are survey results from 1999.
More than half the households in New Hampshire heat their homes with oil and around 14 percent use natural gas. Coal is by far the least common fuel trailing electricity by more than more than 4 percent.
Henning, who was introduced to the possibility of coal heat by a customer whose chimney he swept, is so pleased with his decision, he considers himself the coal distributor's best form of advertising.
His propane company was not quite as thrilled. Henning's only use for propane these days is cooking. He got a call from the company after his January bill was $6.72.
After realizing Henning was not going to meet his contractual consumption minimum, the company began charging him a $180 per year rental fee for his propane tank.HEATING FUEL COMPARISON This chart shows how much the federal government estimates it would cost to generate a specific amount of heat using different fuel types and types of heaters.
Fuel Type
Heating Appliance Type
Fuel Cost Per Million Btus
Fuel Oil (#2)
Furnace or Boiler
$22.83
Electricity
Furnace or Boiler
$32.49
Geothermal Heat Pump
$9.35
Baseboard/Room Heater
$30.86
Natural Gas 1
Furnace or Boiler
$17.82
Room Heater (Vented)
$21.38
Room Heater (Unvented)
$13.90
Propane
Furnace or Boiler
$27.65
Room Heater (Vented)
$1.83
Wood 3
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Pellets
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Corn (kernels)
Room Heater (Vented)
$14.39
Kerosene
Room Heater (Vented)
$27.50
Coal
Furnace/Boiler/Stove
$5.35
Post by: Tallpine on January 21, 2008, 06:43:01 AM
We've pretty well cleaned up the dead wood on our place in the last 5 years, so we'll have to start hauling it from neighbors' land. There is a big ranch 1/4 mile south of us that we can cut wood off of.
Post by: K Frame on January 21, 2008, 07:14:01 AM
If I had a chimney at my house I'd be seriously considering a hot air coal stoker.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 21, 2008, 07:25:35 AM
Post by: Firethorn on January 21, 2008, 07:52:39 AM
No clinkers with coal pellets?
I think that it'd depend upon the furnace. I've seen some designs that used a fancy forced air circulation path to really up the temperature to burn out even the stuff that causes clinkers/cresote/etc...
My question would be, can't they build a bigger hopper? That or a long feed shoot or even a conveyor system that activates whenever the hopper gets too low.
Same deal with the ash. Then do a big reloading from the surface when summertime rolls around.
Post by: K Frame on January 21, 2008, 08:08:46 AM
Clinkers are generally less of a problem with power stoker stoves than with the old style open bed burn systems.
You still have the raw material of clinkers, but it never gets the chance to aggregate.
Post by: K Frame on January 23, 2008, 03:46:19 AM
I just saw this...
You can't burn out clinkers. Clinkers are substrate rock (I think that's the right term) that's mixed in with the coal and which is soften or melted by the heat of the coal fire. While it's soft if you can break it up into smaller pieces and get it through the grates, you won't have clinkers. That's one of the reasons why continuous stokers burning small grind coal do a pretty good job at keeping clinkers clear. The burn through on the coal is a matter of minutes instead of a 8 to 12 hours for stove or egg coal. The clinkers just don't have time to accumulate.