ATDDTA (6) 177(railroads)

[Dave Monroe]

On 4/11/07, Monte Davis <monte.davis at bms.com> wrote:

> Ummm.. with all respect to Hollander, petroleum
>
> (1) can be extracted via wells rather than tunnels or strip mining
> (2) [related] is a liquid and thus can do a lot more of the work of
> moving itself around than coal can
> (3) yields more energy per pound combusted
> (4) leaves almost no solid residue
>
> Those add up to a pretty compelling techno/economic edge. The whole
> point of coal liquefaction is to bring to coal advantages that oil
> already has by its nature, so to point to it and say "see, oil dosn't
> really have an edge" is a bit perverse.

>From a correspondent ...

-----

No Disrespect to Monte Davis:
   Well, I guess that underwater oil wells are free, require no
capital investment, manpower, etc.  I think those platforms that stand
in the Gulf of Mexico (and elsewhere) probably cost more than a least
significant bit, though I will agree that once a well is working it
can be monitored and maintained with minimal manpower.  The tunnel
mines have been heavily automated since the 40's, and that's why coal
mining and its union just faded out of national significance.  So, I
see not a great deal of difference between oil and coal in your point
1).
   As I recall, coal used to fuel steamships and railroads, so it can
move itself around fresh out of the ground.  Petrochemicals have to be
refined, the set up and cost of which you didn't mention.  Crude oil
can't fuel a car, a boat, or a train without being refined, having its
nature set (will it be kerosene, gasoline, diesel fuel, or  heating
oil).
   Coal is seldom "refined" except, perhaps, when it has its
impurities driven off and transformed into coke for use in making
stainless steal.  While I do not deny what you say in 2), I feel you
weight your points too heavily.  Coal and Oil have their specific
abilities and uses.  I never said that everything about oil is bad,
nor that coal is perfect and good in all cases.  Historically, there
were times (in the 20's I think, I'd have to look through my files)
when the energy needs of the nation might have been well-served by
coal, but the issues became politicized.  Coal was frozen out.
   In your point 3), you don't specify how the comparison was arrived
at (that oil has more energy/pound).  There are grades of coal, as
there are grades of gasoline.  Who conducted the research?  What were
they measuring?  Therms?  BTU's?  etc.  And even so, if they were
priced/units of energy/ ton, or what have you, that would say more.
And then you get into Government subsidies, for one? and not the
other?
   In 4), that coal burning discharges more particulate matter into
the air, is a problem solved long ago by chemical "scrubbing."  It was
this technology that made Pittsburgh a habitable town back in the
'50's.  Before that, there was so much soot in the air, people were
moving away.
   And what about the non-particulate (gaseous) contaminants that
cause smog.  To clean up our smog producing auto-emissions that cause
cancer in animals and humans, that create green-house gases that
contribute to global warming?  That threaten the whole planet?  What
about those?  I must concur.  Oil does seem to do a better job with
those.

Hollander

-----

... you know, amybe everybody should just send me their posts, and
I'll send 'em along for them.  That was, my name could COMPLETELY
monopolize the Archives ...