Don Evans wrote on September 08, 2008 01:15 AM: All finite commodities, especially fossil fuel energy resources, are a part of a world market. This is the problem; we can't divorce ourselves from our "enemy", as they are simultaneously our suppliers and customers. This has its benefits and drawbacks, which are beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that the country that can generate energy outside of this relationship (i.e. non-finite energy sources) gains a significant political and economic advantage.

Coal, like all other fossil fuels, WILL be sold on the world market, not consumed solely by Americans. It WILL be sold to the highest bidder. In short, our erroneously calculated "200 year supply" will end up lasting a fraction of that amount of time, as the citation in the post below illustrates.

I would agree that TRUE energy independence is a patriotic endeavor. It is so, however, regardless of who recommends it, or the methodology they propose to affect it. Being a lifelong Republican myself, I recognize that patriotism in non-partisan.

douglas wrote on September 07, 2008 07:29 PM: despite the spin, you use what you got. if all the irish had for home heating was peat, that's what they used. if all the icelanders have is geothermal, that's what they use. if all the eskimos have is whale, walrus, or seal blubber, that's what they use. if all the sub saharans have is cattle, camel, and donkey dung, that's what they use.

the u.s. must use all available sources to disconnect our economy from reliance on limited/restricted, imported sources. as technology [read efficiency, economy] rise in the cute alternative sources, they will replace the "what we got today" sources.

instead, the leftists and their stooges/politicos [as in reid, pelosi, the honorable captain nemo kennedy] stall all u.s. sourcing. that reduces to aiding and abetting our self-avowed enemies.

Don Evans wrote on September 07, 2008 10:26 AM: Whenever you use a substance that has a perfectly inelastic supply as an input, i.e. any of the fossil fuels, you subject yourself to the whims of supply and demand. Those who support the increased use of coal, citing a supposed 200 year supply of the finite substance, don't seem to understand this concept; and it's puzzling as to why this would be.

The 200 year figure for coal reserves, a rough estimate (as most are) was at current rates of consumption (domestic consumption only), and did not include consumption by markets outside the U.S.

"The 250-year estimate was made in the 1970s and was based on the assumption that 25 percent of the coal that had been located was recoverable with current technology and at current prices, said one member of the study group, Edward Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering and science at Carnegie Mellon University.

But he said that more recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey showed that at least in some areas, only 5 percent of the coal was recoverable with today's technology and at current prices. The 100-year forecast was based on current consumption rates, about 1.1 billion tons a year.

By 2030, the rate of coal consumption could be 70 percent higher - or 50 percent lower than it is now, the study found" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/21/business/coal.php).

As coal becomes increasingly sought after and rarefied, it WILL become more expensive; becoming a drag upon our ability to create energy, as well as our economy. This is simply by definition.

Why do you think China, the economy that's currently beating the pants off of us, is seeking non-finite alternatives with all the fervor of a drug addict?

Let's think about our reasons for supporting increased coal use, before we get ourselves into another fossil fuel dependency trap.

Tim wrote on September 07, 2008 10:16 AM: coming from an anti-coal group,what did you expect.natural resources defense group.same whacko's that don't want us to drill, build refineries or transmission lines.back to the stone age!

Ugly American wrote on September 07, 2008 09:44 AM: sorry, there's a typo:

H2) (water)

should be

H2O (water)

Ugly American wrote on September 07, 2008 09:43 AM: It's basic chemistry.

Coal is mostly carbon with trace mercury, thorium and even uranium.

When you burn it you get CO2. That's where the heat energy comes from. Any CO2 you avoid producing is energy you avoid producing. Hydrogen is the cleanest, when you burn it you get H2O which is water.

Oil is a mix of hydrocarbons. Natural Gas is mostly methane (CH4) but also ethane, propane, butane, and pentane. Gasoline is C5H12 up to C9H20 or so. When you burn them, the C (carbon) becomes CO2 and the H (hydrogen) becomes H2) (water). So of all hydrocarbons methane (most natural gas) burns the very cleanest giving 1 CO2 and 2 H2O per molecule. While gas is worse, diesel is worse, lubrication grease and then wax and the so the very worst thing you can burn in coal being all carbon. Any processing requires more power which means more fuel is burned before its delivered to the consumer.

Solar & wind are clean. Electric cars would mean almost no smog in our cities. Natural gas, oil & coal should be saved for farming, medicine & plastics.

tjj wrote on September 07, 2008 08:32 AM: Frank, Frank, don't you understand yet? Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Liberals just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives on the other hand need evidence.

douglas wrote on September 07, 2008 08:25 AM: those who condemn using "what we got" discard their ability to ever comment on the cost of energy. that's of course if they are honest.

when the larder is skimpy, i get out the ramen noodles. the leftists would order out for caviar.

don't we force enough money into opec coffers already ? where does the funding for "improvised explosive devices" and strapped on, terrorist bombs come from but sympathetic to the terrorist cause, opec members ? mebbe the leftists think the terrorist weapons funding comes from those lads collecting aluminum cans in barren deserts. thus each time the leftists with their man, harry osama reid, stall the exploration and development of "what we got" energy resources, more american military and civilians worldwide are murdered.

thanks harry osama.

Frank M wrote on September 07, 2008 07:54 AM: "The total emissions rate for oil and gas fuels is about 27 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon, counting both production and use, while the estimated total emissions from coal-derived fuel is more like 50 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon -- nearly twice as much."

That is one really, really, heavy gallon. Perhaps the writer can explain how they arrived at these figures.

I would like to believe some of these "green" statistics but before I let someone lead me down the garden path I would also like to know how I got there.

Perhaps one of these geniuses could explain how much methane is produced per gallon of milk. Of course we know how that happens; Cow eats, gas comes out of both ends and at the bottom milk is produced. But green is green.

Milk is a usable commodity that is more in demand every day from developing countries. The price of a gallon of milk is also rising. Don't believe it watch CNBC for a couple of hours.

Fuel for our vehicles is also a usable commodity that is also more in demand from developing countries.

Everything has a cost and unsubstantiated statistics don't prove much of anything. So, if you want to use statistics to prove your point, show me how you got there, don't p** on my leg and try and convince me that it is raining.