Re: [GBlist] surplus coal

[William Dinklage <wdinklag@carleton.edu>]

The carbon in the coal is not going to contribute to global warming as it 
is, so by that token, I would say landfill it--put it back in the ground 
where it came from.  If nature means for that coal to oxidize (converting 
the C to CO2), she can do it with a lightning strike or natural weathering 
processes.  Coal burning also can release sulpher dioxide (contributing to 
smog) and mercury, to name only a couple of the nasties.

On the other hand, if you can sell the coal or save yourself fuel costs by 
burning something else and then put that saved money into energy efficiency 
in your home, maybe not burrying it would make this the winning scenario.

-Bill Dinklage
 Carleton College, Geology
 Minnesota

--On Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:48 PM -0500 Mike Falstad 
<mfalstad@johnmilnerassociates.com> wrote:

> What is the best thing to do with the contents of a coal bin in an old
> house?  There is enough to fill a couple of garbage cans and the quality
> varies.  Is it better for the environment to find a user that would burn
> it for energy, or to send it to the landfill?  If its better to burn,
> what is the best way to find someone who's interested?
>
> -Michael Falstad
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>





______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________