Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (1547)	9/15/2010 11:49:15 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Well, I'll ask you...are you an expert in coal? I fall short of calling myself an "expert", but I am certainly better informed than many on that website you linked. It's obvious in several cases that the facts that are presented on that website were garnered from internet searches rather than actually verifying the information (one example, the coal slurry pipeline at black mesa has been defunct for a long time, but they are presenting it as current. I know it is defunct because I have been there). here's another false conclusion: "But the gradual depletion of coal with higher heating value is already necessitating the mining of larger quantities of lower-quality coal to yield an equivalent amount of energy" The depletion of higher quality coal is not the reason tha lower quality coal is being mined. The lower quality coal is being mined because it is cheaper to get to. Where there is a lower energy yield from sub-bituminous coal, the cost to energy ratio is more attractive. If you want me to explain why surface mines that only have 60' of overburden and expose 60' seams of coal where the mining companies get nearly 100% of the coal are cheaper than digging down 1000' to a 72" coal seam and only recovering 50% to 80% of the coal, I can do that for you. One thing that is often overlooked is that many of the mines of the past still have about 60% of the coal still in them. That coal was left there as "pillars" to hold up the overburden. But that is still mineable coal with the right technologies. The conclusion in this paragraph is absolutely absurd "The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (i.e., declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than 30 percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation’s increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal class." It goes back to what I said above. The reason that the energy content per unit of weight has decreased is not due to a shortage of higher BTU coal. Hell, 300' beneath the surface of 80% of the state of Illinois there is a coal seam that is 72" thick.....and that's just one coal seam. It's not shortage, it's the lower cost of production of the lower BTU coal west of the Mississippi. BTW: coal is becoming cheaper and cheaper to mine. Both underground and surface. The only cost increases are due to government entities intentionally trying to sink the coal industry. I don't need to post the Obama video do I? As far as 300 years never panning out....I agree. The use of coal will likely end long before we run out of coal. But the shortage of coal should not be used as an argument to move away from it. Cuz it just ain't so.