Talk:Coal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"by country" articles

Are the any articles that break up coal power by country like we have for renewables and nuclear? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am adding links to visualizations of data on world reserves by country and US state, and US state-by-state coal-fired power generation. They are from http://show.mappingworlds.com. Wikitigger (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

UK coal reserves

UK government official figures suggest that there are about 45 billion tons of "recoverable reserves", about 300 years' worth. [1] Is the reference from Dr Fred Star for this recent addition to the article—now there are hardly any accessible reserves—a reliable source? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've answered my own question. Notability of Claverton energy group shows that the are not notable. I'm inclined to revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Verify credibility tag added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Id say remove the claim if other sources are not provided to back it up. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Claim removed. I won't be adding the UK government citation with the actual figure to the article as Britain isn't in the table of countries' reserves. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Biomass Co-firing Compatible with Coal Gasification?

Biomass co-firing is the process of burning biomass (such as wood chips, rice hulls, saw dust, grasses, and possibly even dried dung or anything else that works) along with coal to both act as an economical supplement as well as reduce emissions. (In the case of CO2, the biomass is almost always carbon neutral.)

This article really should have some mention of co-firing, but what I was wondering is if co-firing is compatible with coal gasification. Does coal gasification require purified coal and only coal, or can large amounts (over 20%) of the feedstock be biomass and still burn acceptably? The reason I ask is that I'm curious if, in combination with carbon capture and storage, the resulting power could be not just zero emission, but carbon negative. It's also a bit disinegenous to call coal gasification with carbon capture and storage "zero emission" as that still leaves the emissions resulting from coal mining, transport, and processing. If co-firing coal gasification is possible, then what percentage of biomass would be required to compensate the emissions from mining, transport, processing, etc.? I'm wondering if co-firing coal gassification with carbon capture and storage could end up being an economical (small?) way of mitigating global warming. Coal burning to reduce CO2 emissions? Crazy, but it might actually work.

Yes, biomnass co-fueling is definitely possible alongside coal for gasification purposes. I believe it is also possible to a limited extent in more conventional combustion. (I have seen talk of biomass miscanthus co-firing in conventional coal power plants).

On to gasification, there is a plant in germany that has been co-feeding biomass alongside coal for the last 10 years. Different gasification systems have different tolerances for biomass. Many cannot use it at all. A few can do both. There are also biomass-only gasifiers.

There are at least 2 CBTL plants in development currently in the US that plan to combine biomass and coal, alongside CCS, and thereby achieve dramatic reductions in lifecycle carbon footprint. I am developing one of them.

It is generally expected that 40% biomass alongside coal + CCS in synthetic fuels plants will result in fuels that are lifecycle carbon neutral (subject to significant project-by-project variability depending on type of biomass, transportation logistics, ETC).

So in short, yes, you can co-feed biomass, and yes, that can take things to carbon neutral/negative. And there are even a few of use working on actually doing it. Sfj4076 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil priced at around 35 USD per barrel

This price was passed in 2004, so maybe the page needs to be updated?! in "Estimates of the cost of producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that domestic U.S. production of fuel from coal becomes cost-competitive with oil priced at around 35 USD per barrel,[9] (break-even cost). This price, while above historical averages, is well below current oil prices."--59.101.4.240 13:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was at $64 per barrel at one point in erly 2005, but has go down slightly since.--86.25.51.68 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An intresting idea and well worth persueing.--86.29.244.57 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


If one is optimistic about one's feedstock costs (i.e. can procure coal for the cost of mining it), the statement is roughly correct. A number of such projects are under development currently. If you are thinking the number needs to be refined because no projects have broken ground yet, you must remember that for industrial development of this scale, a 7-year timeline from start to finish is actually pretty aggressive because of all of the hoops (permitting, engineering, financing ETC) that must be jumped through. Sfj4076 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Coal#Liquifaction spin off?

Some other articles linked to coal#liquifaction and that link does not work any more.

Also, it seems to me like "Coal-To-Liquids" should have its own article. Any other opinions? Vincecate (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Coal To Liquids also fits in with Gas to Liquids, Biomass to liquids, and the hybrid Coal and Biomass To Liquids, under the general category of "synthetic fuel"
The fundamental processes are generally the same (with some moderate changes) regardless of whether the feedstock is coal, gas, or bio, and given the industry trend towards coal/biomass hybrids they all belong together, so as to avoid unnecessary fragmentation. Sfj4076 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Generalisations don't apply to brown coal

The sections Energy Density and Carbon Intensity, and perhaps others, make generalisations that don't apply to brown coal.

E.g. "Commercial coal has a carbon content of at least 70%." Brown coal can be 60% water —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.186.81 (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Coal/Cajul

I wasn't making a controversial addition. It is a well known fact that some Muslims were coal around their eyes, called cajul, because Muhammad (PBUH) did so as well. Of course it is not extremely common but Muslims do try to follow his example. This is a cultural use of coal and should be noted. I can look up some sources if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.226.244 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be kohl, rather than coal, wouldn't it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing Style

The second paragraph of the article begins with a long and poorly written sentence. It should be revised to make it easier to read. There is nothing in the factual content of the sentence that needs to change.

Coal was formed from layer upon layer of annual plant remains accumulating slowly that were protected from biodegradation by usually acidic covering waters that gave a natural antiseptic effect combating microorganisms and then later mud deposits protecting against oxidization in the widespread shallow seas — mainly during the Carboniferous period — thus trapping atmospheric carbon in the ground in immense peat bogs that eventually were covered over and deeply buried by sediments under which they metamorphosed into coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.73.122 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Footer box seems out of place

This footer box seems out of place. Coal is used all over the world. Why would we only care about Energy Use in the U.S.? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Waste products or resources?

Some of the waste products of coal combustion are listed as mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Surely these are valuable by-products rather than waste-products (assuming they can be successfully extracted). Or am I being hopelessly niave...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are being hopelessly niave :). The mercury is on the parts per billion levels but when you burn millions of tons of coal it adds up to a problem. Coal is mined from coal mines because thats where there is a high concentration of coal. Mercury is mined from mercury mines because that is where there is a high concentration of mercury, same goes for uranium, thorium, etc, etc. It needs to be a concentrated stream of a metal to be valuable (ofcourse concentrated varys with how difficult it is to seperate the choice metal and the metal price!) TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

British coal...best in the world...

Please tell me thet there is an oversight in the "Proved Recoverable Coal Resources at the End of 2006" table. I was given to understand (by my school geography teachers) that there were about 200 gigatonnes of bituminous coal still recoverable from under the land area of Great Britain (in spite of the demand that the Industrial Revolution placed upon mineral wealth of the British Isles). Yet, I can find no mention of British Coal Reserves in the above table. This is a considerable let-down, since I had assumed that Great Britain would "fall back" upon her coal reserves, once the North Sea oil and gas were exhausted (a possibility that seems to be looming with alarming rapidity, given the emphasis we now seem to have to place on Russian oil and gas reserves....).

82.5.68.95 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The coal might be the best in the world, but if it is in a location where you have to move a lot of dirt to get to it then its no longer economicially viable to mine, and thus not recoverable because no one would recover them for a loss! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Coal as a traded commodity

This section is a little bogus since most coal is sold via long-term contracts between mines and plants. Just like there are different grades of crude (heavy, light, sweet, sour) there are many grades of coal. Just as not all refineries can handle all types of crude most plants are configured/optimized to run a certain type of coal (no one would put a low sulfur high volative PRB coal into a boiler designed for Ill #6). What coal price should be cited - Eastern Bit Coal, Sub-bit PRB coal, maybe a German brown or a South African? Citing the market price of each will have different stories show. I recommend a drastic re-writing of this selection to highlight the price-stability of coal as well as the price variations between different coal grades. Anyone else have other ideas? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Here's some info on price of coal in the US: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table28.html The US average in 2008 was closer to 30 dollars[1], so I wonder if the reported costs are actually worldwide averages? This section should be rewritten for added clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.42.84 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Word Polish

In the Underground fires section, the following statement:
...vast underground labyrinths full of unique minerals, some of them very beautiful.
could stand to be rewritten. Even with a picture (which would be great, btw), the statement is editorializing and should be adjusted. While just chopping off the last 5 words would likely be sufficient, it seems a rather ham-handed solution. For the time being, I can't come up with a suitable improvement so maybe someone else can put something together.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural reference

'Like sending coals to Newcastle' could be added as a cultural reference, the expression is used to describe doing something that's pointless because it's not needed. Newcastle was a major English coal exporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.194.137 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course; but I believe the exact expression was "carrying coals to Newcastle". Maelli (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

World Coal Reserves Table

The proven coal reserves of the UK have been misstated as 200,143,000,000 tons or 22% of the world's reserves. According to the BP spreadsheet which is the referenced source for this article, (footnote/reference # 55) the actual amount is 220,000,000 tons. Also, according to the same source it is Anthracite and/or bituminous coal while the table on the Wikipedia page states n/a. --Ittmann (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • An IP made the error, misunderstanding by three orders of magnitude. It stands to reason that there is no coal left in Britain. I have removed the entry. Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
UK is fourth from last in the table cited and the amount is not significant in world terms (although it could still be so in national terms). However, the cut-off point seems arbitrarily set at the eighth from last position. For completeness (and to avoid confusion in the future) is there a case for including the bottom seven regions?--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The list omits Vietnam, South Korea, France, United Kingdom and Japan because the source says they are below 0.1%. I think this is fine. Maybe a list could be made of total coal mined over all time? Abductive (reasoning) 09:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article's list seems to vary from the source. I am going to correct it. Abductive (reasoning) 09:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Cut-off point: I see now how it's selected, omitting countries with the ¤ symbol. Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the list once more in agreement with the source cited. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the coal reserves of Pakistan. The BP reserves table cited is not up to date. Relevant reference in regards to Pakistan Coal reserves is also cited. I have also corrected the percent values of USA and Russia which had a significant effect due to the addition of Pakistan coal reserve figure. Adeelyusuf (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sea Coal

Suggest adding 'somewhere' some more about 'sea coal', notably 'what it is' or was, in a chemical/technical sense. Lignite? Bituminous, Anthracite? What it 'was', in past time, i do not know. Anyone? As a current article of commerce, reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Examining+Bentonite,+Seacoal's+Role-a062955716

Which might be paraphrased: Currently Sea Coal refers to a powdered bituminous coal, used in casting and foundry operations, to improve surface finish of the article cast. Oddjob1947 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an historical term relating to coal from the coalfields of Durham and Northumberland in England. It means either coal that was delivered (e.g., to London) by sea, or because the material was washed from cliff faces by the sea and available to be gathered from the shore. Prompted by this, I'm just going to expand slightly the topic in the article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
A modern usage also added, but the reference was a bit general and didn't cover the "casting and foundry" suggestion above. An expert review would now be good. Thanks for the pointer—this was all new to me! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. Understood: 'sea coal' is an historical term, albeit one with a modern usage as well. Seemed apropos to provide the link, at least for modern usage, to 'technical' grade. Other references to foundry/casting practice usage can be found via, eg Google/Books. Not sure how to reference that? Notably, The Foundry Magazine, June 1909, P 194: [2].

Should the added 'foundry' info be incorporated? If so, how/who? Might be a whole added section under uses: the foundry bit doesn't 'fit' elsewhere, BUT seems smallish. Possibly work it into the existing paras on 'sea coal', however that is explicitly, and properly, 'early', while 'sea coal' for foundry use is in use/commerce today. Might have a 'stub' para titled 'other uses'? Not sure about the technical grade of 'early' sea coal, if the pits referenced still yield 'bituminous'.

I'm willing to edit article, but also willing to not stir things up. Suggest some reference to foundry/casting: just noticed wikipedia article at "molding sand', mentions 'coal', which might be referenced, lacks footnotes, could do with expansion....<grins>)Oddjob1947 (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New section "Industrial processes" added, with acknowledgement to you, incorporating foundry sand. Furnace lining to follow. There may be enough material for a spinoff article soon. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Coal tipple

A coal tipple is a structure used to load coal into railroad hopper cars, or sometimes barges or trucks, but there is no article on it. I did not find much from a Google search, but I hope some other editor will follow up on this. The tipple article is a disambiguation page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Election issues

In certain parts of the world, pro-coal or anti-coal statements can get a person elected to a government office. I have a POV on this issue: Many of these people could not pass freshman chemistry! So, as an encyclopedia, how do we describe the political aspects of coal without bias? Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Steam Coal

This is a vague and ambiguous term and should not be used as a type of coal. It should be replaced with two types - Semi-Anthracite and Semi-Bituminous as noted in "Steam Power Plant Engineering" other sourcesS. The US DOE defines Steam Coal as any grade (including anthracite, bituminous and lignite) that is used for commercial power generation. In Britain Steam Coal is another name for Bitumonous (according to Encyclopedia Britanica) I can find no resource that defines it as a grade of coal between Anthracite and Bituminous. Ebtrr1 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While revising the article you have changed the world coal reserves table. Pl fix it and do not make any changes in the table with out citing references --adeelyusuf (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Who are your addressing? I have made no edits to this article ever, I am just suggesting a revision and soliciting feedback. If you are not addressing the term "Steam Coal" then create a new section on the talk page that fits your subject Ebtrr1 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mining and economy

This article doesn't have any information on how coal is gathered. There should be a section(s) that highlights the different kinds of coal mining. Also the economic impact of coal needs development. 10:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I didnt rite dis im editing it nd y dont u write ur own fuc ing thing they did enfof all u did is put them down by saying bad shi t about all there hard work go fuc ur self bich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.210.80 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shorten?

"Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer." Does this mean the same thing as kill? Why not say kill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.177.64 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat amibiguous sentence

Near the end of the Early uses as fuel section:

Without coal, Britain would have run out of suitable sites for watermills by the 1830s.

Presumably this means that coal added power generation capacity beyond what would be possible with only watermills, but I'm not certain. Could we nail this down in the article? Vranak (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

CO2 emission info on liquefaction

It says liquefaction of coal has "generally greater" CO2 emissions, but not by how much greater. Given that the paragraph has lots of figures in it, this seems like a glaring (deliberate?) omission. I haven't been able to find an exact figure yet - but industry lobby puts forward a derisory figure that goes against common sense (heating coal to huge temperatures cannot possibly mean "equal or slightly higher" emissions) while others cite much higher figures. If this is an area of controversy, the wiki should cover it.


"The total well-to-wheels emission rate for conventional petroleum-derived fuel is about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. If the CO2 from the liquid coal plant is released into the atmosphere, based on available information about liquid coal plants being proposed, the total wellto-wheels CO2 emissions from coal-derived fuelwould be about 50 pounds of CO2 per gallon— nearly twice as high." http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/coal/liquids.pdf

"In a Congressional hearing held in April 2005, David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council testified that even if 90% of the carbon from a coal-to-liquids plant were to be captured and successfully sequestered, the “well-to-wheels” CO2 emissions would still be 8% higher than for petroleum production and refining." http://meic.org/egaging-quizes/energy/how-do-co2-emissions-from-coal-to-liquid-fuel-syngas-compare-to-petroleum-based-diesel-fuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.239.1 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Global peak coal production

The World coal reserves section is very misleading. The paragraph on peak oil should start with asserting that global peak coal extraction may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current extraction with these sources: Coal: Resources and Future Production. Energy Watch group. 28 March 2007, revised 10 July 2007. Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy. Energy Watch Group. December 2006.

It should definitely not start like it does now, with explaining what would happen if we had zero growth in coal production, since there are no sources that see zero growth as likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havasaur (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationalize the units

There are too many different units in the article. Please rationalize the units. Also, it would be good to move the consumption and reserves sections together so that there can be a discussion of how future expectations for coal supplies. Avram Primack (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-25/fossil-fuels-beaten-by-renewables-for-first-time-as-climate-talks-founder.html Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall by Alex Morales November 25, 2011; excerpt ...

Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

99.181.134.134 (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy density of coal error

It looks like the values is incorrect. The correct value should be between 24 and 32 kJ/kg not 24 MJ/kg. The website that is cited http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/JuliyaFisher.shtml , However all of the links to the sources are broken. Furthermore it was complied by high school student, whom can be error pron. Later in the section "Carbon intensity", There is a different source cited, that claims 6.67 kWh/kg which is 24.01 KJ/Kg http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Calorific+value+of+coal

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/06/09/energy-density-and-waste-comparison-of-energy-production/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.51.24 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Usage

The article mentions that coal is the state mineral of Kentucky, but then claims coal is not a mineral. However, anthracite is a form of mineral coal, as stated on its page. I think the reference to coal not being a mineral is misleading and should be removed. Jjjam (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


There are two listings of energy density. One is a table showing range for a number of coals; the other (first) liss just a single value.

Cut out the single value as redundant and too low as a average.

Dr.nThomas Reed Barre, mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.25.249 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why no section on why coal formation started and then stopped after such a brief period?

This is such an interesting subject, I don't know why it's not mentioned. Here's some late new about the issue http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628181721.htm --Skintigh (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Error

Indonesian coal exports are higher than production for 2010 as (impossibly) indicated in the tables in sections 12.2 and 12.3. I suspect that the years are one year behind in 12.3, i.e mislabeled at the top of the table,?

114.76.74.12 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

In the section coal under: 

===United States===

Why is this not referenced because these costs might be correct but sound like some environmental extremist's opinion. An acedemic reference would valid this.

Thanks

Greg

202.45.150.65 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done The process is to tag it as being unreferenced and then delete it after some time if no one provides references. It's been over six months and when I tried to notify the author I find that he hasn't been active since dropping that content into the article. As a result, I deleted the content. Someone can find references and add it back in the future if it is valid. Thanks for the accuracy check. Celestra (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) coal can be used as a dildo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.192.36 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

no article coalification

the article should be written.--92.193.80.33 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Serbia

Serbia was ranked in the top 10 of Proved Recoverable Coal Reserves, just wondering does that figure including Kosovo? 2sc945 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: FIx the top line of the classification table

Could someone fix the top line of the classification table? All the data is shifted one column to the left. THanks.

Coalperson (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Replaced the missing pipe " | ". Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coal's formation

Coal is a formation of rock through heat and pressure or weathering and cooling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.88.51 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The above is nonsense but then the section of the article on coal formation is somewhat confused itself and needs the attention of an expert. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A few more figures for UK and US for just before WW1

I'd like to refer someone to the first two paragraphs of a book titled "A Textbook on Coal-Mining Science" by Joseph Parker, published by Oliver and Boyd, in 1916. There it states that in 1913, GB produced some 287M tons ("more than 4.1(08) tons per head of the population were consumed at home"), the industry employing more than 1,110,000 workers. US produced nearly 485M tons in 1912, Germany 255M tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.124.55 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Peak Coal?

Question, There is peak gas and peak oil articles. When is the estimated time that coal supplies will run out?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer , I found "peak coal" at the "World coal reserves" section in the article. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to replace US coal regions 1996 map image with the file that I have edited

I have edited and uploaded the US coal regions 1996 map shown on the coal page and various other places. I have corrected the legend to reflect the actual scale of the map and to include the most important information from the legend, which is a separate file. The separate legend file has slightly different RGB color values than the map, so I used the values in the map's color table. Other than the corrections and improvements to the legend I have not changed the map. 

 I do not have permission to change the wiki myself.  Below is the reference to the edited file, could someone please change the link to reference the edited file?
File:US coal regions 1996e.png
This file was downloaded from the wikimedia commons and edited to correct the scale and to add a summary of the legend information from an associated image also downloaded from the wikimedia commons.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thayer1 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistcal Error in Uses Today: Coal as Fuel

I was reading the article on Coal and noticed that there may a percentage wrong with the growth of coal use. It states "World coal consumption was about 7.25 billion tonnes in 2010[33] (7.99 billion short tons) and is expected to increase 48% to 9.05 billion tonnes (9.98 billion short tons) by 2030." Doing the math myself, I found that it is an increase of only 24.8% (Possible they misread it). If it was, in fact, and increase of 48%, that would mean that by 2030 we would be using 10.73 billion tonnes.

9.25 / 7.25 = 1.248 or an increase of 24.8%

7.25 X 1.48 = 10.73 way over what it states.

Please let me know if my math is off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argozian (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction within article on energy density? Wrong units in table?

In the section "Types", the column "heat content" reports numbers between 24 - 35 kJ/kg. Is this not in contradiction with the information in section "Energy density and carbon impact", which rather reports energy densities of ca. 24 MJ/kg (i.e. 10 times more). I suspect that the units are just wrong in the table, and that it should report heat contents between 24 and 35 MJ/kg instead of kJ/kg. Or did I miss something?

Billjoie (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The figures in "heat content" are in thousands - ie the comma is not a decimal point
The heat content is in kJ/mol , 1000kJ = 1 MJ - so the figure seem right eg "Brown Coal" = 28,470kJ/mol = 28.470MJ/mol.
Note that the 24MJ/mol figure is a picked 'average' - eg see the source http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/JuliyaFisher.shtml - it has a range of values that fairly match the figures in the table "heat content"
I think the data is ok? Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Coal Add-on

(This is an add-on to first paragraph) Coal is an organic sedimentary rock [3] Wzkariampuzha (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. The first paragraph already says it's a sedimentary rock. Whether it would be useful to explicitly state that it's organic is something that should be determined by consensus, but it's already implied in the existing wording. Incidentally, you didn't provide enough information about the source you cited to evaluate it properly (a moot point in this case, but please note for future reference). Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Image

Photogenic coal: [2] Keith McClary (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

West Virginia State Rock

In the Cultural usage page, West Virginia should be mentioned along with Kentucky and Utah, as bituminous coal is its state mineral. West Virginia also has a strong "historic link" to coal mining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.163.233 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Content" section

Someone added the "Content" section but immediately had a seizure and left it nearly empty. Can some knowledgeable person complete it? There is a major constituent table under "Types". Maybe that's where a "contaminant" or "minor constituent" section should be added instead. Rt3368 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ash

Both this article and the coke article define and describe these substances with respect to ash content. Generally, readers will think of ash as a by-product of combustion of organic material in air, so the idea that ash exists in things not yet burned is alien. The coal article has a link to the (pretty good) "fly ash" half way down the article in the "Environmental effects" section (though we must guess that this is what's meant by "ash"); the only mention in the coke article is in the bottom template (to "fly ash"). "Fly ash" is the first place we learn (after nonetheless laborious reading) that "ash" in this context is the constituant portion of silicates and metal oxides and so on that are incombustible included... conglomerated in the matrix of the material? As ligands? Compounded in other ways? We don't know from "coal" or "coke"; "bottom ash" isn't helpful and "fly ash" isn't that much better. I wish I knew more about this. Rt3368 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

The 1999 gross world carbon dioxide emissions from coal use seems a little dated (8,666 MMT). An updated number (10,636 MMT) for 2013 (and forecasted beyond this date) may be found at http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2013&subject=0-IEO2013&table=13-IEO2013&region=0-0&cases=Reference-d041117 132.3.61.80 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Done used http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=1&aid=8&cid=regions&syid=2011&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD this source from the same site instead as it only uses published numbers and makes no projections Cannolis (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Cannolis (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

The information source of "Imports of Coal by Country and year" is EIA. Now EIA has new 2011 statistics. Can someone retrieve and update the data? Or I can do it. Allenli123 (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only to be used when you have a specific edit request such as "change X to Y", "add X after Y", or "delete X". Feel free to retrieve the information you wish to add, post it here with a link to your source, and re-activate the edit request. If the reviewing editor finds the edit appropriate and adequately sourced, there should be no problem adding it to this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Who cares about the German designation of the different types of coal

The wikitable contains a column "German designation" in the article's section Coal#Types. Who cares about the (divergent) German designations for coal? Are the different types of sub-bituminous and bituminous coal (i.e. "Flame coal", "Gas flame coal", "Gas coal", "Fat coal", "Forge coal" and "Nonbaking coal") actually used in English or are they just literal translations from the German denomination? Cheers, -- Rfassbind (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Price of coal: which coal?

In the coal-as-a-traded-commodity section the price of coal in October 2010 is given as $71.25 per short ton. Wanting to update it for today I went to the same source (US EIA) and found a range of prices, from $12.50 for Powder River Basin 8,800 Btu 0.8 SO2, to $64.60 for Northern Appalachia 12,500 Btu 1.2 SO2, to $137 for 2014Q1 metallurgical coal priced at coke plants. Is there a canonical representative price? If so which, if not should the article clarify the situation by listing the full range of prices, or at least some of them? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As a naturally occurring product, coal can not be graded scientifically. No one price exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by California Genius (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if it's a little off topic, but specialist advice needed

In the famous song "16 tonn" the lyrics say "cole number nine'. Any idea what kind of cole this is referring to? 77.50.243.137 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Lyrics fan 77.50.243.137 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the number of a particular coal seam, which is not necessarily the same number in different areas. In western Kentucky there is "No. 9 (No. 5 or Springfield coal of Illinois).—This is the standard coal of western Kentucky and the mining of it is attended with fewer troubles than any other coal in the region. While normally not attaining the thickness of No. 11, the absence of dirt slips, clay partings, and the uniformity of the coal make it the more desirable mining proposition (Crider, 1914)." [3], so this could be the coal referred to in the song. Mikenorton (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's a Straight Dope discussion on this topic (note that several of the provided links don't work). Mikenorton (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag for the environmental effects section

I really fucking hate censorship in the name of not hurting peoples feelings.


I need to store this or I will forget it Template_talk:Convert/Archive_January_2014#Plurilzation. twice added {{NPOV}} tag to the Environmental effects section. The tag tells the users:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2015)

There is no discussion on the talk page. It is difficult to decide whether the dispute is resolved or not if the user has not formulated their grievances. Too much stress on the environmental effects? Too little stress? No information on the positive effects of burning coal (are there any?). Has somebody prevented the user from fixing the article themself? Unless the grievances are not formulated I see no alternative but to remove the tag that serves no useful purposes. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Environmental effects clearly one sided

The environmental effects section is clearly one sided and very poorly sourced. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the "main article" referred to at the top: Environmental impact of the coal industry? Seems it is well sourced. Why don't you simply add some "positive environmental effects" backed by WP:RS's for balance? Vsmith (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that entirely unhelpful and useless comment. I'm not saying the facts are wrong or un-cite-able, I am expressing concern that they are not cited and written in what reads to me to be a very biased way. This violates two pillars of Wikipedia WP:5P1 and WP:5P1 (wp:v and wp:biased most notably), and someone who is better at writing in a less biased way should take a look. Also adding ""positive environmental effects" backed by WP:RS's for balance" is not how bias works, maybe yous should read wp:biased. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's all stay polite, CombatWombat. If you say this is one sided, and someone else proposes putting the other side, that is a constructive suggestion. I put it to you that the environmental effects of the coal industry are rather one sided, and so a NPOV description will mainly consider damaging effects. It is also rather better sourced than many sections of wikipedia, with seven references and many hyperlinks in half a page.
Perhaps you could edit the page to reduce its bias, instead of simply saying someone else should. LachlanA (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just updated the text. The main problem I saw was that it was an itemized list rather than prose, and so I fixed that. If you have a clear objection, please state it. Otherwise, I'll remove the "disputed" tag in the next few days.LachlanA (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys, is the person who says it is "one sided" the CEO of Big Coal? Does anyone honestly dispute that breathing in coal dust is bad for you? Are you honestly taking this position? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis

If I said "Getting shot in the face is often bad for you" would that be a one-sided opinion too?Kingshowman (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The people who edit this page are ridiculous and OBVIOUSLY WORK FOR THE COAL INDUSTRY. It is ABSURD THAT THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON COAL ON WIKIPEDIA, THE MOST UNIVERSALLY KNOWN CARCINOGEN TO MANKIND, AND ONE CANNOT GET AWAY WITH SAYING ANYTHING THE LEAST BIT NEGATIVE ABOUT COAL'S NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT IT BEING INSTA-DELETED. what is up with this? Are you all on the Big Coal Wikipedia Internship Program? Black Lung can't be in the coal article? It can't be listed that coal is universally known to be toxic, cause airway inflammation, shorten lifespan, turn lungs black, and poison your heart? what's up with thatKingshowman (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Black lung is in the article, as well as several negative environmental effects, in the sections Health effects and Environmental effects. Please accept that people can have opinions that differ from yours without having a conflict of interest. Please also discuss the article and how to improve it, not other editors. Sjö (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Sjo, I actually, on this subject, cannot accept that someone "has an opinion that differs from yours without having a conflict of interest" when the opinion is that coal is bad for you, a fact which has been known for hundreds of years and is obvious to anyone with sensory access to the external world. There is no other side to that story. Everyone knows coal is bad for you. Are you really disputing that? If so, why?Kingshowman (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
There are differing opinions on how harmful it is for people and the environment, as well as differing opinions onhow it best should be presented in the article. That means that we soemtimes have to discuss and compromise to find the best way to improve the article. Sjö (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There are differing opinions on whether there are differing opinions. My opinion is that everyone agrees that it is extremely harmful. I've yet to see any credible information that says coal could actually be good for you. You enable the same diversionary, dilating tactics that cost millions their lives in previous situations like this, when morally bankrupt, corrupt, profiteering, exploitative, polluting industries like Big Tobacco, and Big Oil, and Big Asbestos, and Big Lead all hid the damage they were inflicting on people's health for years and years and years, because "reasonable" people like yourselves who want to bend over backwards to defend polluters, illegal industrial polluters, and killers for profit, by saying the "evidence isn't yet in", "opinions differ on the danger." etc. They don't. We all have more then enough information to know that it's hazardous, unreasonably dangerous, and its use should minimized and replaced as far as possible in favor of safer alternatives as soon as is practically feasible.Kingshowman (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Beware the Coal Shills!

There are Coal Shills in these hills! Don't let them catch you putting negative information on Coal in the Lede! The Wikipedia page is guarded carefully.Kingshowman (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

As I said on your talk page, you need to learn about what the lead section of an article is for. Mikenorton (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This page has been infiltrated by Coal industry insiders

They revert any edit that doesn't portray coal in glowingly positive terms, suggesting you can eat coal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Wikipedia has completely lost any pretense of editorial integrity because it has no mechanism for policing corporate interests from protecting their reputation on Wikipedia pages as best they can with infinite shills.Kingshowman (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Nominate for deletion

This entire article has been written by Coal Industry Stooges. It needs to be deleted and re-built from the ground up from a non-ideological perspective, in which the simple fact of Coal's horrendous effects on human health are not mercilessly challenge, by paid Big Coal fanboys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section in need of reworking

The article has been tagged as having a lead section that's too long, as there are now five paragraphs. Given the length of the article, 38K+ characters, I think that the overall length of the lead section is probably reasonable, but I suspect that it bears reorganisation. I would suggest that the last paragraph is combined with the current third paragraph, covering all environmental aspects of coal use. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: it was me who added the tag, I've removed it now. It seems to me that the third paragraph is very detailed, perhaps too detailed for a lead. What do you think? —George8211 / T 18:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Combining the 3rd and 5th paragraphs seems OK to me.Kingshowman (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman


Question: should it be "the disease and mortality burden of coal use today falls most heavily on China" or not? Minor suggestion.Kingshowman (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

I've been bold and made the proposed change. Kingshowman (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A general google link to a period novel by Dickens rather fails WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)



VSmith, did you look at the first page of that novel? The book begins with a very famous discussion of everything in London being covered in "soot" (read: coal) in the 1850's. I think it's relevant. It's fairly well-known that 19th century England was a disgusting cesspool of Coal pollution, likely far worse than contemporary Beijing. I think Dickens is generally reliable.Kingshowman (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The opening of Bleak House: "London. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snowflakes—gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun. Dogs, undistinguishable in mire. Horses, scarcely better; splashed to their very blinkers. Foot passengers, jostling one another's umbrellas in a general infection of ill temper, and losing their foot-hold at street-corners, where tens of thousands of other foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke (if this day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I placed the Dickens material under 'culture."

I still think the lead should say that today the disease burden of coal falls on China, though I suppose one could just say that "today" is already implied.Kingshowman (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, the previous comment. I see you've kept my addition of the word "today." Thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No need for your rudeness on my talk page VSmith. There really shall be coal in your stocking this year!Kingshowman (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WHO estimates of coal pollution related deaths

The only source that I've found that uses the 1 million coal pollution related deaths is this source used on the environmental effects of coal page, to quote "The World Health Organization and other sources attribute about 1 million deaths/year to coal air pollution.". There are reasonable looking sources that give 670,000 deaths in China alone e.g. figure for 2012, so I'm not saying that there is anything particularly unlikely about the million number, with an estimated 100,000 such deaths in India [4], but I would prefer to see a better source than a blog for this figure, as it is likely to be challenged. I have read through all of the WHO reports cited and didn't manage to find any estimates of deaths specifically attributed to coal. However, the number of deaths attributed to indoor air pollution (a lot of which apparently comes from burning coal, although I haven't found a percentage for that) in the first cited WHO source (citation #13) is nearly 2 million in 2004, so again the total numbers don't look that far out. Mikenorton (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: I think it comes from the lead of Environmental impact of the coal industry, citations 4 and 5. —George8211 / T 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The first source there only mentions deaths in the US, the second source is the one that I quoted from above. Mikenorton (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC

Mike, I am seeing 3 million total deaths from air pollution, 1 million from coal, but give me a few minutes, and I'll read the WHO material more carefully and double check the figures and where they come from. Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman

I will look for some more sources. I agree that the more sources on this, the better.Kingshowman (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

And yes, George, those are the sources I had in mind. I'll see if there is more somewhere, but those seemed persusasive to me.Kingshowman (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

The 'nextbigfuture' source is a blog, so not generally regarded as a reliable source, although there are occasional exceptions to that rule. Mikenorton (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I misspoke. Those were not the sources I had in mind. I assumed they were without looking and apologize. The sources I referenced were found at the WHO website. More can be found by googling WHO Coal Deaths, and I will try to provide more if the ones I listed are not satisfactory. I was not relying on the sources from the Environmental Impact of Coal page, but 3 pages I found at the WHO website, that seem to be from 2009.Kingshowman (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

@Mikenorton:, since you were the last to restore this figure (1m annual attributed to coal), can you point out where it says that in the sources you used? I'm unable to see it in the WHO material, but I may simply be missing it. Kuru (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add the edit of a blocked sock

There has been slow-motion edit-warring to re-add the edit of a blocked sock without consensus. I happen to agree with Mikenorton that the way the sock edit is phrased does not accurately reflect the source. As such it does not belong anywhere in the article, let alone the lead. Dr. K. 04:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Union of concerned scientists quote

The full quote from this source [5] is "Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year." The nation being referred to is clearly the USA and I see no way of interpreting this to mean that globally coal plants are the primary cause of global warning. The two quotes now included in the lead are "top source of Carbon Dioxide emissions" and "the primary cause of Global Warming", but that's just misleading and using them to support the statement that burning coal is the primary cause of global warning is just synthesis. It might well be true, but this isn't the source to show that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK found a source (page 12) that says "Global coal consumption (responsible for about 40% in total CO2 emissions) grew by 2.7% in 2013, well below the decadal average of 4%". The lead section already says that coal is "one of the largest worldwide anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide releases". Given that CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming (just the biggest), then to call coal the primary cause (which I take to mean ≥50%) is just wrong, so on this basis I'm reverting that addition again. Mikenorton (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mikenorton: In addition to your concerns, with which I agree, the phrasing The burning of Coal for fuel is also inaccurate. "Burning coal for fuel" is not equivalent to "coal plants" which is what the reference mentions. Also the edit was originally made by a sock that has been blocked, a fact which only adds to the problems. In any case, the edit-warring to keep adding it to the article must stop. Dr. K. 04:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro Section Edits

I have edited the introduction since was all over the place. Typically (from what I have seen) the introduction should be what the article is generally about. In this case that is what coal is, what it is generally used for (industry, materials etc.) and what are the general concerns (i.e. environmental). Before the edit the intro went into detailed figures and supporting arguments for opinions, which were more applicable to the following subsections in the article and related links. I have placed much of the information in the appropriate subsections (though some things are more applicable in the related links).Edwiki2005 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add all the information you can but try to keep the articles orderly and clean and the arguments in the talk section.Edwiki2005 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sea Coal?

I followed a link from History_of_glass#New_processes in an attempt to find what sea-coal meant. I had to fix that page since the deeplink was broken, but the current page does not explain what sea-coal is, or why it was so named. If anyone knows what this is, or how the article used to address it, and can edit the page to include historical names/classifications for coal, I for one would appreciate it. Gsnerd (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Classification of coal by the World Health Organization

Can anyone find a reference to verify this statement that was added to the article? Jarble (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ranks

Please change:

  • Lignite, or brown coal, is the lowest rank of coal and used almost exclusively as fuel for electric power generation. Jet (lignite), a compact form of lignite, is sometimes polished and has been used as an ornamental stone since the Upper Palaeolithic.

to:

  • Lignite, or brown coal, is the lowest rank of coal and used almost exclusively as fuel for electric power generation.
  • Jet (lignite), a compact form of lignite, is sometimes polished and has been used as an ornamental stone since the Upper Palaeolithic.

Aot007 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Made as sub-point as Jet (lignite) is a form of Lignite not a rank. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

"Coal (from the Old English term col, which has meant "mineral of fossilized carbon" since the 13th century)[1]..."

Col has not meant mineral of fossilized carbon since the 13th century. When a 13th-century person said "col" they meant a black rock they could burn: the thing we call coal. They didn't think of it as a mineral of fossilized carbon. The etymology needs to be rephrased. I would suggest:

Coal (from Old English col)...

The etymology is in any case contested. The OED gives:

Etymology: Cognate with Old Frisian kole, kōle (West Frisian koal), Middle Dutch cōle (in Old Dutch perhaps in a place name; Dutch kool), Middle Low German kōle, kāle, kol, Old High German kolo, kol (Middle High German kol, German Kohle), Old Icelandic kol, Old Swedish kol, kul (Swedish kol), Old Danish cull (Danish kul), variously denoting mineral coal and charcoal in early use; further etymology uncertain.

Further etymology.

Attempts to establish an Indo-European etymology have encountered numerous difficulties; perhaps compare Early Irish gúal coal, Sanskrit jval- to blaze, jvāla flame. However, although close semantically, the proposed connection with Early Irish gúal raises formal difficulties. Alternatively, on the assumption that the word referred originally to a combustible substance that had been through a burning and cooling process (i.e. charcoal), it is sometimes suggested that it may ultimately be from the same base as cool adj. and cold adj.

Place-name evidence.

Apparently attested early in place names, although often difficult to distinguish from other place-name elements, e.g. forms of cool adj. As the first element in place names such as Colerne , Wiltshire (1086; now Colerne), Colret , Kent (1086; now Coldred; compare also Colredinga ‘of the people of Coldred’ in a 13th-cent. copy of a charter of 944), it probably refers to charcoal-burning (compare sense 2). In the case of other place names, such as Culeford , Somerset (1234; now Coleford), it is disputed whether reference is to charcoal or mineral coal (compare sense 4 and also discussion at coal pit n.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emospagans (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

so much for anyone caring about the intro to the article on the most important fuel in the development of modern industrial civilization. epic fail, bro.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Often the terms "coal plant" or "coal power plant" are used, referring to the presumed origin of coal being old fossilized plants" - incorrect etymology as the first use of "plant" to refer to "ground... destined to the purposes of extensive commerce" was in 1789 [4], predating the first coal-fired power stations by nearly a century. 82.35.203.29 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Dubious assertion removed. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I checked anon's source and it's gibberish. My source is a legitimate college textbook. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
While control theory textbooks often give anecdotes regarding early industrial-revolution inventions, I would be interested to see a quote supporting the claimed etymology, now removed from the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I would love to quote from the book but there is a problem. Because it is an old book many of the pages are missing including the ones with the quote about "plant" etymology. Furthermore, the book is out of print so it may not be very easy for me to get a new copy. I will try to contact the authors about this and hopefully they can shed light on the matter. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, chiming in if I may: My OED gives 1789 as the first instance of plant in the sense of the site of an industrial process. I find the Franklin/Powell/Workman assertion to be wildly speculative at best. Eric talk 03:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table28.html
  2. ^ The Foundry Magazine, June 1909, P 194
  3. ^ Hamilton Earth Science Textbook
  4. ^ https://archive.org/stream/mrsthraleafterw03seelgoog/mrsthraleafterw03seelgoog_djvu.txt

The current state of coal

With the rise of renewable energy such as solar and wind, coal, and coal power plants are becoming less dependent in the United States and abroad. Energy pricing associated with coal production and renewable energy has become competitive while coal production declines. Coal decline can be directly attributed to the rise in natural gas production due to new technological advances. With the low cost pricing of natural gas, investment in renewable energy over coal, the world faces an uncertain future for the best form of energy.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]


PurePuffin (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)PurePuffin

Inconsistent coal articles

The Metallurgical coal article started by saying it is also known as coking coal, which is made from bituminous coal, but the Anthracite article says HG and UHG anthracite are used as a coke or coal substitute in various metallurgical applications (sintering, PCI, direct BF charge, pelletizing), and used to be used for smelting, but lack the pore space of Coke. So I expanded the Metallurgical coal article to mention Anthracite too.

The Coal article says Anthracite can refer to metamorphically altered bituminous coal and "petrified oil", but Anthracite article does not mention petrified oil.

I'm putting in some cross links, but I suggest someone with more expertise check these articles. Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

In 'Uses Today' > 'Coal as fuel', change "...and in 2012, about one-third of the United States' electricity came from coal" to "...and in 2016, 30.4% of the United States' electricity came from coal[1]". Dkjeiau373671 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
 Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

update needed for pollution premature deaths in US

See MIT study https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 should be 52000/year in US — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leastk (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You would need to check the original study to see if it breaks down the figures further. 52,000 per year is an estimate for all pollution related to power generation, most of which is likely to be from coal, but some would be from oil (and possibly other fuels). Mikenorton (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Errors to be fixed

Hello there, There are a lot of inconsistencies in the tables in Sec. 12 Market trends, e.g in Proved recoverable coal reserves at end-2008 or 2011 (million tonnes) the share of United States is , not . As I can not change the article, would anyone be so nice to fix that? --149.156.41.64 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit-request: "involves geological processes which take place over time" should be "which take place over millions to hundreds of millions of years"

Please replace "geological processes which take place over time" to "geological processes which take place over millions to hundreds of millions of years."[1]

I came here to find out how long it took coal to form, and then had to go look it up myself since this article decided to uninformatively declare that the processes "take place over time." Tell me, what processes DON'T take place over time? Try not to include phrases that say nothing. Here, time equals "millions of years, if not hundreds of millions of years". I found a reference for you: ""In general, a high quality black coal seam would take millions of years, if not hundreds of millions of years to form" says Dr Judy Bailey, coal geologist at the Discipline of Earth Science University of Newcastle. Infamia (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point. I have changed the article based on your comments. Please note that "over time" was referring not only to geological processes but also to biological procesess. The geological processes that occur do indeed take millions of years but I'm not sure that the same applies to the biological processes, so I'll leave that to a biology specialist. I used a different source reference because there are deposits of coal that are less than 66 miillion years old, and I want to avoid giving the impression that hundreds of millions of years are necessary for coal formation. GeoWriter (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thanks very much for making the edit. I like your version.Infamia (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm

Request to fix typo

In the Hilt's Law section, the spelling of the word applies is incorrect. 185.31.154.220 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Tons is spelled wrong Cw1237 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Where? It appears several times, including "short tons" (which is correct) and "hundreds of millions of tons of ash" (which might or might not be correct), plus "short tonnes" (which is not correct). Please explain where it's misspelled. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: "Tonnes" is not spelled wrong, it is a different measurement of weight than a "ton" (either kind). See the Tonne article for more. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Etymolgy --> Remove this part: " In Old Turkic languages, kül is "ash(es), cinders", öčür is "quench". The compound "charcoal" in Turkic is öčür(ülmüş) kül, literally "quenched ashes, cinders, coals" with elided anlaut ö- and inflection affixes -ülmüş." Reason: The word "coal" has nothing to do with Turkic languages. This is not an etymological dictionary. Clearly that part is irrelevant to this article and English readers. It's a random addition by some users. How when the word coal is not Turkic that pointless part still remains in article? 188.158.70.246 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

New Section

Hello Wikipedians, I want to add a new section named "the current state of coal." I have made an example of what I wanted to add, but I am not sure if it is ready for the article. Would you be able to take a look? Thank you for your help.

Yes where is it? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A figure about *charcoal* has been mistakenly put in the article.

Next to the "industrial processes" section there is a figure from a museum captioned "Traditional works of coal. Valencian Museum of Ethnology." The image shows what is definitely CHARCOAL production, including an earthen charcoal furnace, an axe, & other tools of the trade. This image shouldn't be here.

 Done Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I think the structure is a bit mixed up so if I have time I will try to improve it. Any suggestions re the structure gratefully received. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump

He is a big supporter of coal. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you add more about him to the US article Coal power in the United States first then ask again here so we can summarise anything of general interest?Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes he is one of the biggest supporters he won Pennsylvania only because of coal miners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.120 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So could you write more about him in Coal power in the United States then afterwards summarize here?Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

US electoral bias clear in Economics section

"In the long term coal and oil could cost the world trillions of dollars. " Citation from 140"Coal Is Killing the Planet. Trump Loves It". New York Times

The entire economics section seems to be an american electoral editorial. There is already a section on damage from coal to environment and another on damage to people. When you read a section of an article called economics, you would believe it wouldnt be written with a political perspective.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.153.71 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

China is mentioned 6 times whereas India, the EU and USA are mentioned twice each in the Economics section and many other countries are mentioned. So I don't think it is too American. Some time ago I asked for this article to be unprotected so anyone could edit it but that has not been done - feel free to ask yourself. I am adding a new economics cite which you might like to read and quote from which covers all the G20 countries. I am not American and not very interested in the USA but perhaps you would like to add an economics section to Coal power in the United States. I have just moved 4 USA specific books to Coal mining in the United States.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess I wasnt clear, I will be more specific. The New York Times is deeply anti-Trump, and with a title like "Coal is Killing the Planet. Trump Loves It" it makes it a pretty clear anti-Trump hit piece. Whether the arguments within the article are correct or not, I don't think this is an appropriate unbiased citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.42.108.243 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Although I still believe the NYT is a reliable source I have replaced the cite with a newspaper which is not American and the original study. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times definitely is reliable if any newspaper in the world is, but that dos not mean that it is unbiased. I love the Times and read it every day, and I despise Donald Trump, but just the title "Coal is Killing the Planet. Trump Loves It" is dripping with so much contempt that it makes me cringe. It sounds like something from a supermarket tabloid and gives the Wikipedia reader the strong impression that the Times is no more reliable than the National Enquirer. Thank you very much for finding more neutral-sounding sources. —8.9.94.16 (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikilink needed

In the section "Coal mining", the Wikilink Metallurgical coal should be added to the phrase "metallurgical coal" in the sentence "Most coal mined is thermal coal (also called steam coal as it is used to make steam to generate electricity) but metallurgical coal (also called "metcoal" or "coking coal" as it is used to make coke to make iron) accounts for 10% to 15% of global coal use."

Also (in my opinion), in the slightly later section "Coal as a traded commodity", the two instances of "metcoal" should be changed to "metallurgical coal" in the sentence "The price of metcoal is volatile and much higher than the price of thermal coal because metcoal must be lower in sulfur and requires more cleaning." Although "metcoal" was identified with "metallurgical coal" in the earlier section, the brevity of using the abbreviation here is not worth forcing readers who jumped to this section from the ToC and didn't read the earlier section to search to find out what the (to a total outsider like me) peculiar word "metcoal" means. The prefix "met-" is highly ambiguous, with many very different meanings, and "metallurgical" is not the one that occurred to me first.

Since the article is currently protected I can't make the changes myself, but maybe someone who agrees with either or both of these suggestions will do it. Thanks. —8.9.94.16 (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

As yours are not the first good suggestions I have requested the article be unprotected. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently if it was unprotected there would be lots of vandalism by schoolkids. I did not do a new link as there is one just above but have written out "metallurgical coal" in full as you suggested.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Types

I followed a piped link (I don't remember where and what it was unfortunately and have deleted that browsing history) to Coal#Types and it was a mislinking, causing me to be somewhat astonished.

The term linked was either steaming coal or coking coal. I see that the first of these is a redlink while the second is a helpful redirect, so the first is more likely to have been piped. I think we need a page or section on grades of coal (another redlink) that explains these two common terms, and/or better navigation to it if it already exists. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I could not find the mislinking you mention. I am not an expert but I guess the reason thermal coal (also known as steam coal) redirects to this article is that any coal could be used in power stations, but that in practice the metallurgical coal (also known as met coal or coking coal) is not because it is more expensive. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Deposits left ?

How much is left ? Where ? How exploitable is it ?--Musaran (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Doesn't the legend more accurately refer to charcoal than coal? 165.225.38.199 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coal/Archive_2&oldid=1136617453"