"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Estimates vary, but it is believed that there is at least an 80 year
supply of oil obtainable from coal if it supplied all of our energy
needs at current rates. It would last much longer when supplemented by
conventional oil reserves, solar and wind energy.

The process to convert coal to oil becomes economically justified when
regular oil prices exceed $35 per barrel.
China is busy building several coal to oil conversion plants.

Why isn't this technology and resource being tapped into in the US?

Eisboch


80 year supply? Meaning enough to supply our oil needs for 80 years? Or,
just an 80 year supply of oil from that source (coal), meaning that's the
life of that particular industry?


According to the articles I read (all of which are in general agreement)
there is enough oil from coal available in the US to last approximately 80
years at current levels of usage. This assumes that *all* the oil used
for energy is coal derived. When you add the additional, liquid oil
reserves and production, plus solar and wind, the energy supply from all
sources extends well beyond that.

The point of the articles was that we are not likely to slam into an
energy shortage in the near future, contrary to many gloom and doom
predictions, and oil from coal can provide additional time for the
development of new energy sources. But, we need to get serious and busy.

Eisboch


"Get busy" (or busier) may not happen as quickly as certain individuals
might like because obtaining more coal ***sometimes*** involves making a
mess like this:
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/

(Fishing related, since the process often wrecks water for miles around.)

This mysterious web site - www.mountaintopmining.com - (registrant: Mining
Internet Services, Inc.) tells a prettier story. Looks like it was designed
for 6th grade classrooms.

On the other hand, "Get busy" might happen, if stuff like this can be hidden
more effectively in the futu
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us...gBWXxbIMTsIaXw

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



"Get busy" (or busier) may not happen as quickly as certain individuals
might like because obtaining more coal ***sometimes*** involves making a
mess like this:
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/

(Fishing related, since the process often wrecks water for miles around.)

This mysterious web site - www.mountaintopmining.com - (registrant: Mining
Internet Services, Inc.) tells a prettier story. Looks like it was
designed for 6th grade classrooms.




That's one of the problems. Whenever anybody thinks of coal, they
automatically think strip mining.
Strip mining is only one of several ways to recover coal, and there are
different types of coal, each with it's own properties that are suitable for
different purposes.

We have a whole civilization dependent on oil for survival. That won't
change overnight and real time political issues may cause severe problems in
the short term that unfortunately can only be addressed with military force.
It seems to me that a rational, well planned program to reduce dependency on
foreign oil by using resources controlled by us as a temporary "fix" while
new, high tech energy sources are developed makes sense.

Eisboch

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:27:16 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


That's one of the problems. Whenever anybody thinks of coal, they
automatically think strip mining.
Strip mining is only one of several ways to recover coal, and there are
different types of coal, each with it's own properties that are suitable
for different purposes.

We have a whole civilization dependent on oil for survival. That won't
change overnight and real time political issues may cause severe
problems in the short term that unfortunately can only be addressed with
military force. It seems to me that a rational, well planned program to
reduce dependency on foreign oil by using resources controlled by us as
a temporary "fix" while new, high tech energy sources are developed
makes sense.

Eisboch

Damn, shades of Jimmy Carter, 30 years later.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...ps_energy.html

"Eisboch" wrote
Whenever anybody thinks of coal, they automatically think strip mining.

And when some people think of surface mines, they see red, and tend to
exaggerate. I live in West Virginia, btw.