Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
earthmagazine.org
Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#2I've read about this fire before and on the surface it seems crazy to think we have all of these underground fires happening that no one really thinks or cares about. I understand how we got to where we are but it still makes me stop in amazement that this is a thing that is actively happening.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#3Really crazy how untold billions are spent on climate change mitigation and they can’t raise the 60m to put out this fire.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#4Really crazy how untold billions are spent on climate change mitigation and they can’t raise the 60m to put out this fire.
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. They lead to the local equivalent of coal fires.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#5How much is a fire like this contributing to CO2 emissions? Seems like 60 million is a small price to pay if it stops ongoing burning and combustion products.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#6How much is a fire like this contributing to CO2 emissions? Seems like 60 million is a small price to pay if it stops ongoing burning and combustion products.
I don't think that's how it works. Coal is fungible, and is not in short supply. Putting out the fire would not increase the amount of coal being used industrially, nor would it decrease the cost of coal. It would just eliminate one of many sources of CO2. So a net win in global warming terms.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#7How much is a fire like this contributing to CO2 emissions? Seems like 60 million is a small price to pay if it stops ongoing burning and combustion products.
I don't think that's how it works. Coal is fungible, and is not in short supply. Putting out the fire would not increase the amount of coal being used industrially, nor would it decrease the cost of coal. It would just eliminate one of many sources of CO2. So a net win in global warming terms.
Parent comment is saying as much. $60mm to put out this fire is worth it in order to eliminate a CO2 source.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#8How much is a fire like this contributing to CO2 emissions? Seems like 60 million is a small price to pay if it stops ongoing burning and combustion products.
I don't think that's how it works. Coal is fungible, and is not in short supply. Putting out the fire would not increase the amount of coal being used industrially, nor would it decrease the cost of coal. It would just eliminate one of many sources of CO2. So a net win in global warming terms.
Either I'm not reading what you wrote correctly, or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I'm saying put it out. Less CO2 released.
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#9Can we not just start a gofundme campaign for this and bypass the government funding decisions?
Re: Firefighting foam heats up coal fire debate (2010)
#10How much is a fire like this contributing to CO2 emissions? Seems like 60 million is a small price to pay if it stops ongoing burning and combustion products.
I've tried running the numbers, but actually finding numbers is hard here.
If I'm understanding the sources correctly, the coal seam on fire in Centralia is about 3700 acres in total size, and coal seams seem to be only a few feet thick generally. Plugging in 8 feet for a thickness (which I think includes a large amount of non-coal rock, but I don't know the recoverable fraction so I'll estimate 100% of it to be coal), I get that the total CO2 production of burning all of it would be about 7 million metric tonnes of CO2. That would be for the entire lifetime of the fire.
So one coal seam fire would produce about 0.2% of the US's yearly CO2 emissions. Keeping in mind that these fires last for decades, that would suggest that coal seem fires account for less than 1% and probably less than 0.1% of CO2 emissions.