Comments on: David Rutledge says world coal estimates are too high http://earthsky.org/energy/world-coal-reserves-overestimated-says-scientist A Clear Voice for Science Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:57:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Benjamin Napier http://earthsky.org/energy/world-coal-reserves-overestimated-says-scientist/comment-page-1#comment-6725 Benjamin Napier Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:07:37 +0000 http://208.96.63.114/?p=4416#comment-6725 <p>Using use patterns has no bearing on discovery of coal reserves. Here in United States, we have huge proven reserves of coal. In addition, it is estimated the spoil piles alone in PA could provide tens of decades of coal derived oil.</p> <p>There is little doubt that at sometime in the future, we will be needing more energy than we can extract from the ground. One existing source that could cut coal and natural gas use by prodigious amounts is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy could supplant all “fossil fuel” use in electricity production. It could even make electric cars somewhat practical in urban environments. But we are not allowing the construction of new nuclear power plants. We are concentrated on pie in the sky stuff like solar and wind. (Don’t dream of damming a river for hydropower, hurt the fish migration you know). As long as we insist on not doing what works now, we re not making progress.</p> <p>Our problems are not technological they are political. The more government is involved, the worse it will be. Again, government decisions are politically correct and have no bearing on economic or practical reality.</p> <p>I beleive we will deplete oil supplies to where the real price (and cost) will reach the choke point. At that time, sans government interference, new sources of energy will be developed. Keep in mind, pyrolysis is available now and works well. Oil prices are too low right now for it to be feasible. Also, there is no chance at all of permitting a reasonably large plant in the United States.</p> <p>We must be real and look at technologies from cold, logical and reasonable minds. Knee jerk and stylish ideas can really hurt.</p> Using use patterns has no bearing on discovery of coal reserves. Here in United States, we have huge proven reserves of coal. In addition, it is estimated the spoil piles alone in PA could provide tens of decades of coal derived oil.

There is little doubt that at sometime in the future, we will be needing more energy than we can extract from the ground. One existing source that could cut coal and natural gas use by prodigious amounts is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy could supplant all “fossil fuel” use in electricity production. It could even make electric cars somewhat practical in urban environments. But we are not allowing the construction of new nuclear power plants. We are concentrated on pie in the sky stuff like solar and wind. (Don’t dream of damming a river for hydropower, hurt the fish migration you know). As long as we insist on not doing what works now, we re not making progress.

Our problems are not technological they are political. The more government is involved, the worse it will be. Again, government decisions are politically correct and have no bearing on economic or practical reality.

I beleive we will deplete oil supplies to where the real price (and cost) will reach the choke point. At that time, sans government interference, new sources of energy will be developed. Keep in mind, pyrolysis is available now and works well. Oil prices are too low right now for it to be feasible. Also, there is no chance at all of permitting a reasonably large plant in the United States.

We must be real and look at technologies from cold, logical and reasonable minds. Knee jerk and stylish ideas can really hurt.

]]>