Talk:Coal mining

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! Part of this article was copied from Conservapedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 22:31, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Updates Needed

Some of the information in this article is out of date. For instance, coal is now one of the most expensive means of electrical production. Natural gas has surpassed coal as a major energy source. Changes should be made for the sake of accuracy.

Anti-coal policy and anti-coal government regulations raised the cost of coal. Still likely cheaper than most other sources but you do have a link! Maybe research other nations use of coal first. --Jpatt 21:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

Why was a critique of Spanish renewable energy generation added to an article about coal mining? Doesn’t make any sense. --GinnyS (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

It shows that moving away from coal power and coal mining, whether for environmental benefits or to improve the health of coal miners, is not necessarily beneficial. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
I’m sure you believe what you’re saying, but this is an article about coal mining, not a critique of renewable energy. Instead of complaining about renewable energy in this article, why not make the complaint in an appropriate article, say like, renewable energy?--GinnyS (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback. I added two more facts about coal. Conservative (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Noticed you added an edit without providing a reference, any chance you could do so? Coal is on a decline in India; all the future proposed coal plants are being canceled and are to be replaced by renewable sources. Thought you’d like to know. [1]--GinnyS (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2017 (EDT)
Coal declining in India? Is Associated Press just reported that it has been expanding this year: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

This was a nice informative article, that is, until recently. Not only has unreferenced information been added, it has now migrated to the second line. Jpatt challenged me to provide references for my assertion about the decline of coal and the rising cost of using coal for power generation. I did then added the information, it seems I satisfied this administrator for there was no complaint. Conservative on the other hand has added unreferenced tidbits and then moved these bits to the beginning of the article. I was reminded by JDano not to insert opinion into the articles. Conservative’s edit concerning Trump and Obama is nothing but speculative opinion without a reference. Sigh…--GinnyS (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

It is widely known that part of the reason why Trump won PA was because of his commitment to expand coal production. This is a campaign promise he is keeping and could not afford not to keep as he needs to win PA in 2020. I added more information to the article and mentioned that coal production is ramping up in 2017 and I also added a footnote for the Trump/Obama portion of the article.
Lastly, if it wasn't for GinnyS trying to remove valid information from the article because of a liberal desire to alter reality, I may not have even edited the article. Conservative (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

More Updates Needed

The two most recent updates need work. At 37.26 mills/kWh (2015), coal is the most expensive of the four primary means of producing electrical power. Renewables such as wind and solar are already cheaper and are becoming more so as the economies of scale are becoming reality. Simply put, coal is no longer an inexpensive source of power generation, and for the second sentence of this article to say so is a flat out distortion of reality. [2]

The Trump/Obama allegations are completely unreferenced and should be removed. This was a good article with only minor updates needed until inappropriate edits were made. --GinnyS (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Government subsidy isn't free, so you should consider the taxpayer dollars pouring into the renewable sources when analyzing their costs. Ironically, the renewable sources are being partially paid for by coal miners and oil companies through tax. DMorris (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, you don't understand basic accounting. Operating expenses are just one of categories of expenses for a company. Capital expenditures can be another category of expenses for organizations.Conservative (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
DMorris: Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but I already realized ‘Government subsidy isn’t free’. Tax payers are on the hook for all types of subsidy whether for oil, gas, coal, renewable, etc.
Conservative: My accounting skills are rather basic, thank-you. That being said, if you would please glance at the link I provided, you would notice maintenance and fuel costs were included with the operating expenses.
Now, back to my original observation. Is the obviously incorrect factoid at the beginning of the second paragraph going to be revised? Are references going to be provided for the opinions about Trump/Obama?--GinnyS (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

GinnyS, I already added a citation about Obama/Trump and coal.

Second, I added information about coal being a cheap energy source. With that being said, I do hope quick advances are made in solar energy in terms of its efficiency. I am not willing, however, to alter reality in order to try to make coal a more expensive form of energy that it actually is. I have also seen the poverty in coal producing areas of PA and I also know that a lot of seniors struggle to pay energy bills. Conservative (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

The entire second paragraph is out of place, it should be further down the article since the main subject is coal mining, not the cost of coal. The first sentence of the second paragraph is still incorrect and contradicts the second sentence. At most coal is a cheap energy source for developing nations. Trump promised coal mining jobs, not the return of coal production. Because of automation and renewable energy, coal jobs will not recover, I challenge you to provide a realistic quote from an economist that says otherwise. If Trump was serious about the plight of unemployed coal miners, he’d encourage the affected states to provide career guidance and economic development in other forms of energy. Coal is on the way out; that is a fact that cannot be denied.--GinnyS (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
So Hillary Clinton, who considered herself and Bill as poor and struggling people right after his presidency, when they were making millions of dollars in speaking fees, cares more about coal miners than Trump? Your opinion of Trump should do is exactly what HRC proposed. These politicians don't want to help coal miners (in fact, they don't think highly at all about those "uneducated, gun/Bible-clinging rednecks"). America has plenty of coal aka. energy potential. Politicians should not put that energy to waste in the name of fighting "climate change." --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Australia is not a developing country and it uses coal quite a bit.Conservative (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

GinnyS, you wrote: "The first sentence of the second paragraph is still incorrect". Liberals always double down even in the face of evidence. Coal is going to continue to be bought in large quantities because the demand for cheap coal exists. Conservative (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
Guy: We agree on something, Trump doesn’t care about miners.
Conservative: I agree, Australia is not a developing country. Remember what I said in the original edit that has since been altered and moved? ‘Coal still dominates in Australia … though renewable power generation is steadily increasing.’ That statement and what I said above is true. Australia does not consider coal to be a cheap energy source nowadays and renewable energy generation is more economical and slowly expanding. [3] --GinnyS (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, according to you: Coal still dominates in the developed country of Australiia, but it is not cheap and renewable energy is more economical. So according to you, a large portion of a developed country is acting against their economic interest despite the fact that it hurts their business profits, etc. In addition, according to youo: coal is expanding in the USA which is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world despite coal not being cheap and renewable energy being more economical. I hope you understand why I am skeptical.
I believe that a big reason why liberals are anti-coal is due to global warming alarmism. So many false predictions have been pushed by these alarmists that they lack credibility. The truth is that climate scientists/meteorologists often have difficulty forecasting even a year ahead or even a week ahead. In the 1970s, climate alarmists pushed the supposed grave upcoming crisis of global cooling. The global cooling scare was a big joke. Conservative (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
@GinnyS: I never said Trump does not care about coal miners. I was talking about the globalist politicians like Hillary Clinton. Trump has clearly shown himself to be for coal miners. You may think his solutions won't work (I think they will work), but he clearly cares about coal miners. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
Guy: You mentioned Clinton and Trump prior to saying this: ‘These politicians don't want to help coal miners…’ What should I think?--GinnyS (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

According to the National Academy of Sciences, "Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is the least expensive for its energy content..."[4]Conservative (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

Con: Your link says nothing about coal.--GinnyS (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, your comment to me is vague. Second, even if your comment was clearer, the current version of the article is acceptable/correct.Conservative (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
Con: Ah, now I see the link, silly of me to miss it. Noticed how you completely glossed over the criticisms of coal in the article you linked. In reference to your recent edits to the article, why are you using a blog as a reference? Why not use a scholarly reference instead of a blog that slobbers all over Trump? If Trump is so good to the coal industry, why didn’t he insist the steal used on the pipelines that worm their way through our country use American coal and iron? I wish I’d never got involved with updating this article; you’re turning it into a mess with the political propaganda.--GinnyS (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2017 (EDT)