[ziggy]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

ziggy, you just said exactly what I just said. Lignite is cheaper, and it is used because of it gives more energy per buck. If the economics made sense, then we would be burning met coal and designing furnances for it. If you wanted to use existing facilities you would use less input material to achieve the same temperatures.

Consequently, met coal has great properties for coke which is why it is used.

I talked to my prof about this. I am 100% correct on this issue. There is nothing physically that would stop you from doing this. Combustion is the same just different energy outputs. The only limitations are economic ones.c

Lignite is the lowest of the lowest ranked coals unless you want to consider peat a coal which it allmost is,unless you have a special stove for coal you cant or shouldnt even burn it,and I'm not kidding about met. coal,it burns too hot too be used in any stove period,BC met would melt a hole right through your stove.
Price has nothing to do with it,they give it away (coal)to the seniors in the elk valley and they know to take the shitty coal,heavily oxidized with lots of iron pyrite and other goodies.

Thats what makes it bad for steel making and it also gives bad button numbers(ask your prof about buttons in the lab and ash content).

So what i'm saying is if you tried to heat your home with clean met coal you would be buying a new stove in a few days,it has nothing to do with the price.

[dog77_1999]

Ziggy, we are talking about using coal for thermal plants, not for home use. Engineers are more than capable of monitering mass input of coal to control the temperature. Again, met coal is so much more valueable because it is so easy to make it into coke for steel production. Again, using met coal for electricity use is like using white wine to clean your carpet of stains. You'll use regular cleaners because it's much cheaper.

It's not surprising they would give away lignite coal. Oil companies gave away natural gas because it was so plentiful and there wasn't any market for it. Hell, they used to dump unleaded gasoline. Now supplies are tighter and the economics kick in.

[OPP]

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Obama will bankrupt the coal industry
Category: Environmental
Posted By: tritium
Date: 2008-11-03 06:15:58

Good. About time, if it's true.

[hwacker]

OPP OPP:

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Obama will bankrupt the coal industry
Category: Environmental
Posted By: tritium
Date: 2008-11-03 06:15:58

Good. About time, if it's true.

Never will happen. you think the people of the states want to live in the dark like you do ?

[RUEZ]

OPP OPP:

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Obama will bankrupt the coal industry
Category: Environmental
Posted By: tritium
Date: 2008-11-03 06:15:58

Good. About time, if it's true.

Ya it's a jolly good time watching people go broke and become unemployed. Put down the bong hippy.

[ziggy]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Ziggy, we are talking about using coal for thermal plants, not for home use. Engineers are more than capable of monitering mass input of coal to control the temperature. Again, met coal is so much more valueable because it is so easy to make it into coke for steel production. Again, using met coal for electricity use is like using white wine to clean your carpet of stains. You'll use regular cleaners because it's much cheaper.

It's not surprising they would give away lignite coal. Oil companies gave away natural gas because it was so plentiful and there wasn't any market for it. Hell, they used to dump unleaded gasoline. Now supplies are tighter and the economics kick in.

Were not talking about the same thing,as your professor about the buttons in met and thermal,You cant burn it in a thermal plant either,coking oven's only.
Your proff. might know his numbers on what he's researched and obviously came to his own conclusions but doesnt know his coal.

The reason they burn the cheap stuff is is because it is very abundant on the surface,you could burn cow chips in a thermal plant like genessee in Alberta with no problem but even blending 10% met into the mix would melt a lot of shit in that plant.

Met is good for steel making ONLY.
Or unless you have a coke oven in your basement for a heater.

No offence dude,I spent over 20 years in the industry with some of the best in the industry as far as engineers go.
Their's not too much about coal I dont know about,I even wrote the papers on how to clean it for ISO 9001 standards as we were the first in the world to become certified ISO.All our ISO mines had to follow my procedures.

But at any rate,we sell maybe 2% of total coal produced to the states now after they fucked us back in the 80's and diversified.

Now they can eat cake as far as Teck Cominco is concerned.

No worrys,our coal industry will flourish now that the old cp rail mentality of Fording coal is expunged from Canada's coal industry.
They were C.suckers(Fording) and it makes me happy to know their out of the picture and got a pee pee slap by teck.Dont know if you know about the takeover by Teck but it was coming ever since Fording took over most of the elk valley mines years ago.

The boys in the blue hats went home to lick their wounds(fording),they had 5 years to make a profit before Teck got control which Teck did and fording didnt.

Now the mines will expand big time,Fording was only worried about their ego as a one time big player as they did do the first stripping in the tarsands.

[dog77_1999]

$1:

The reason they burn the cheap stuff is is because it is very abundant on the surface,you could burn cow chips in a thermal plant like genessee in Alberta with no problem but even blending 10% met into the mix would melt a lot of shit in that plant.

Abundant means it's cheap.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did. It's designed to have 100% of amount of lignite and has X amount of thermal energy released. If you have the same mass of coal, but a mixture of lignite and met coal, it's going to release more thermal energy than lignite. Of course it's going to mess things up. However, if you reduce the amount of coal you put in there, say 50%, you won't mess things up. So long as you achieve the same temperature values to generate steam it doesn't matter what happens.

It's pretty cool that you wrote ISO standards, but thermodynamics is thermodynamics.

[ziggy]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

$1:

The reason they burn the cheap stuff is is because it is very abundant on the surface,you could burn cow chips in a thermal plant like genessee in Alberta with no problem but even blending 10% met into the mix would melt a lot of shit in that plant.

Abundant means it's cheap.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did. It's designed to have 100% of amount of lignite and has X amount of thermal energy released. If you have the same mass of coal, but a mixture of lignite and met coal, it's going to release more thermal energy than lignite. Of course it's going to mess things up. However, if you reduce the amount of coal you put in there, say 50%, you won't mess things up. So long as you achieve the same temperature values to generate steam it doesn't matter what happens.

It's pretty cool that you wrote ISO standards, but thermodynamics is thermodynamics.

I give up.

Ask your professor about the buttons and get back to me after he google's it on the net.
No offence but I dont know where your going with this,it makes no sense when I tell you that you CANNOT burn BC met. coal for heat and you say it can be burnt.

Ask an engineer or geoligist,they have way more knowledge in this field then your teacher.

He comes across as someone who got his info from google.

Once again no offence but I have 22 years working with Canada's best geologists and engineers,most are at the tar sands now and most would disagree with you and your teacher,well....all of them would.