On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:15:41 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:16:16 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"Coals vary in quality, but on average, a ton of coal contains about as much
potential heat as 146 gallons of heating oil or 20,000 cubic feet of natural
gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. A ton of
anthracite, a particularly high grade of coal, can cost as little as $120
near mines in Pennsylvania. The equivalent amount of heating oil would cost
roughly $380, based on the most recent prices in the state - and over $470
using prices from December 2007. An equivalent amount of natural gas would
cost about $480 at current prices. "

When did a BTU of NG get to be 125% the cost of a BTU of oil? Around
here NG is about 1/2 the cost. [not to mention the 'efficiency' thing]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/bu...pagewanted=all



You are not old enough to remember what it was like in a large
city when coal was the primary fuel are you?

I think he might be a Texan, too, so even if old enough I'm not sure
coal was a big deal in TX even 50 yrs ago. And hey- not just the
city. In my rural elementary school you could tell who still had
coal furnaces at home by the soot and smell. [and playing in the 400
cubic feet of the basement dedicated to coal storage was fun once--
the beating and long bath/scrubbing that followed took a lot of the
fun out of it]

Plus there's the whole 'efficiency' thing again-- and, god, what a lot
of work a coal furnace used to be. [thank goodness dad went to oil
before I was old enough to bank fires, shake clinkers and empty the
beast. I just had to carry the ashes to the driveway once they were
cool]

But, that said, I think clean burning coal *should* be where the
research money gets spent first. We've go plenty of it right here
in the USofA-- and most of it in the most economically depressed areas
of our country. Find the right way to extract and burn it- and
we're the new middle east. [us and our neighbors to the north]

Jim