Which method of mining should we use?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:38:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Which method of mining should we use?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which method of mining should we use?
#1
Open Pit
 
#2
Mountaintop Removal
 
#3
Strip
 
#4
Underground
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 12

Author Topic: Which method of mining should we use?  (Read 975 times)
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 04, 2009, 05:07:15 AM »

(and so as not to get hijacked over silly things, we'll limit this to the mining of coal)

The first three options are all methods of Surface Mining, the last one includes several different specific ways to do it, but they are all basically tunnels in the ground.  Wiki's for each one:
Open Pit
Mountaintop Removal
Strip mining
underground

They all suck for the environment, but we need this stuff.  The first three are much harder on the environment...at least the part we can see and if we can't see it, it's not really all that bad is it? (tell that to people that live on top of a Coal Seam Fire)  The last one is much more expensive and much much more dangerous for the employees.


(and please don't just post that we shouldn't use coal, we should switch to nuclear power, we shouldn't mine anything anywhere ever, etc.  We HAVE to mine coal, period, how do you think we should get the majority of it, that is the question.)
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2009, 05:50:33 AM »

I suppose underground mining, if we make sure to keep up on safety regulations and the like.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2009, 06:44:56 AM »

There are different sorts of underground mining, you know. Drift mining is quite different to deep pits.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2009, 07:05:44 AM »

Yeah, I pondered breaking them up too, but thought it might have been confusing for the poll.  Do they differ greatly in costs, saftey and enviro concerns?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2009, 07:26:45 AM »

Yeah, I pondered breaking them up too, but thought it might have been confusing for the poll.  Do they differ greatly in costs, saftey and enviro concerns?

The main difference is that drift mines (that is; a hole in the side of a hill, basically) are a lot smaller than deep pits, so they're less productive but also produce less slag and so on. Traditionally they were less technologically advanced than deep pits, which might touch on safety stuff. I think there are other differences with safety stuff, though I can't remember the differences at the moment.
Logged
Coburn In 2012
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,201


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2009, 07:42:32 PM »

What ever method gets the most coal out of the ground most quickly and helps end our dependance on the Arabs for oil.  I am not even sure why this is an issue except for the Jane fonda type tree huggers.  I mean look -- more mining means more jobs and those jobs pay good money.  Plus more mining gets us more domestic energy and power. It is a win win situation for everyone.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2009, 11:32:50 PM »

What ever method gets the most coal out of the ground most quickly and helps end our dependance on the Arabs for oil.  I am not even sure why this is an issue except for the Jane fonda type tree huggers.  I mean look -- more mining means more jobs and those jobs pay good money.  Plus more mining gets us more domestic energy and power. It is a win win situation for everyone.
Except the air-breathers and water-drinkers. But fuçk 'em.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2009, 11:52:44 PM »

What ever method gets the most coal out of the ground most quickly and helps end our dependance on the Arabs for oil.  I am not even sure why this is an issue except for the Jane fonda type tree huggers.  I mean look -- more mining means more jobs and those jobs pay good money.  Plus more mining gets us more domestic energy and power. It is a win win situation for everyone.

Coal is, for one, a limited resource. Not to the extent of oil and natural gas, of course, but it's not infinite.

Secondly, extraction capacity cannot be substantially increased over current levels of extraction. There's a reason the economies of West Virginia and Kentucky have stagnated: Many of the coal seams that were once highly productive have been completely drained. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a lot of coal to extract, but what coal remains is already being extracted at essentially the maximum possible rate. If it weren't, companies would be moving in to increase extraction; instead, coal mining continues to decline.

Furthermore, coal and oil are not interchangeable sources of fuel. The vast percentage of oil used in the United States goes to gasoline and other petroleum products that cannot be easily replaced by coal. Certainly quite a bit of oil is also burned in power plants, but this is a minority. Moreover, it is costly to build new coal power plants to replace oil power plants, and coal power continues to be relatively inefficient despite decades of subsidies dedicated to making the domestic coal industry more productive in terms of providing an energy alternative.

In short, coal is a failed endeavor. It cannot be substantially increased beyond current capacity. Moreover, the amount of coal remaining to mine in the Appalachians is in decline. While current rates of extraction are sustainable for at least a century, the US is nearing a point at which the importation of coal, probably from Australia or Indonesia, will be necessary as use exceeds extraction rate. There is nothing we can do about this, and it will happen within fifty years unless economic indicators decline dramatically or alternate power usage increases at a rate much higher than currently anticipated.

The environmental issues behind coal are of course also worth considering. A country suffering from asthma cannot be an effective economy. A visit to Beijing will tell you all you need to know about the burning of coal without environmental controls. But they are not the only issues. Coal is a stop-gap, but it is not a viable long-term solution.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2009, 12:49:58 AM »

The primary source for electricity in this country...well, forever, is a "stop gap"?
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2009, 05:47:32 PM »

What ever method gets the most coal out of the ground most quickly and helps end our dependance on the Arabs for oil.  I am not even sure why this is an issue except for the Jane fonda type tree huggers.  I mean look -- more mining means more jobs and those jobs pay good money.  Plus more mining gets us more domestic energy and power. It is a win win situation for everyone.

Coal is, for one, a limited resource. Not to the extent of oil and natural gas, of course, but it's not infinite.

Secondly, extraction capacity cannot be substantially increased over current levels of extraction. There's a reason the economies of West Virginia and Kentucky have stagnated: Many of the coal seams that were once highly productive have been completely drained. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a lot of coal to extract, but what coal remains is already being extracted at essentially the maximum possible rate. If it weren't, companies would be moving in to increase extraction; instead, coal mining continues to decline.

Furthermore, coal and oil are not interchangeable sources of fuel. The vast percentage of oil used in the United States goes to gasoline and other petroleum products that cannot be easily replaced by coal. Certainly quite a bit of oil is also burned in power plants, but this is a minority. Moreover, it is costly to build new coal power plants to replace oil power plants, and coal power continues to be relatively inefficient despite decades of subsidies dedicated to making the domestic coal industry more productive in terms of providing an energy alternative.

In short, coal is a failed endeavor. It cannot be substantially increased beyond current capacity. Moreover, the amount of coal remaining to mine in the Appalachians is in decline. While current rates of extraction are sustainable for at least a century, the US is nearing a point at which the importation of coal, probably from Australia or Indonesia, will be necessary as use exceeds extraction rate. There is nothing we can do about this, and it will happen within fifty years unless economic indicators decline dramatically or alternate power usage increases at a rate much higher than currently anticipated.

The environmental issues behind coal are of course also worth considering. A country suffering from asthma cannot be an effective economy. A visit to Beijing will tell you all you need to know about the burning of coal without environmental controls. But they are not the only issues. Coal is a stop-gap, but it is not a viable long-term solution.

In addition to all of which, coal emits far more carbon than any of the other main sources of electricity, even natural gas which is also a fossil fuel. (Leaving aside here some carbon-sequestration schemes which are decidedly unproven).
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2009, 05:19:45 AM »

Ones that don't use electricity. Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 13 queries.