1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Should Obama ban Coal and have the Mountain tops stripted ? Yes or No

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by DaAuraWolf, Jul 13, 2010.


Should Obama ban Coal and have the Mountain tops strippted ?

  1. Yes,Coal is not usefull anymore

  2. No,Coal is one of the most reliable sources in America

  3. I`m from another country than America,So I don`t care about this

  4. I don`t care what Obama does or doesn`t do

  1. DaAuraWolf

    DaAuraWolf *grumble grumble*


    For all that don`t know what coal is,Coal is one of the most important natural resource in the Appiachian Mountain area of the United State.Coal around there is mainly the people around there`s lifestyle and many of there relatives has or is currently a coal miner that risk there lifes daily mining coal to keep the lights on.So knowing about this,I`ll ask this question."Should Obama ban coal and have the mountain tops stripes or not ?" .I`m from this area and I won`t be offended by any of these replys.
  2. Erienne

    Erienne Anime high :D

    That's the problem. Although many depend on it for their livelihood, it doesn't burn clean, and like oil workers, you risk your life doing it. Actually, probably more so.
  3. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    Our country has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal, and for good reason, we have tons of it, banning it does alot of harm to our energy sector and forces us to rely on less powerful resources, or forces us to rely on resources imported to us from hostile countries.
  4. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Coal may not be very good for the environment, but outright banning it at this point in time would have extreme consequences for the economy and energy. Once we become a good deal less dependent on it, we could consider placing some restrictions on it, but I don't see outright banning it as being a valid option in the near future.
  5. Mr. Mudkip

    Mr. Mudkip Banned

    Who honestly doen't know what coal is?

    And no.
  6. jadebullet

    jadebullet Active Member

    In reference to West Virginia, I am on the fence. I will explain my position below. As for coal, I am fully for its use as a clean alternative to oil.

    Anthracite coal is nearly pure carbon. It burns hot, slow and relatively clean. Anthracite coal is not being utilized as much right now though, due to the higher price of it compared to sub-bituminious, a dirtier coal that is cheaper and more abundant. Anthracite is only found in one area in the US, and that is a 3 plane stretch in Eastern Pennsylvania. Despite the small ammount of the highest grade of coal, and the fact that it was mined heavily between the 1830s to the 1950s, there is still 85% of the original coal still in the ground. Culm, the waste coal that sits in piles around the area that I live, has a new use as it can be burned in power plants normally set up to burn oil, as long as it has been powderized. This culm is also relatively cheap. Anthracite also doesn't have many impurities, unlike Sub-bituminous, which is the next step down, and bituminous, which is one of the worse coal grades, yet one of the most readilly available.

    As for West Virginia, the reason that I am on the fence about it is this. The coal in West Virginia is of VERY poor grade. It is Bituminous coal, a soft grade of coal that burns fast and easy, but has alot of impurities, especially sulfer. Bituminious gained power over anthracite due to the railroad's of the 1800s ability to control the Anthracite fields and jack up the prices. Unlike the Anthracite fields, the Bitumionus fields of Western Pennsylvania were harder to control, and thus prices were lower. This reign of power in the Western PA bitumous fields ended in the 1890s when the unions gained control so that the miners could actually feed their families. Because of the fact that the new fields of bituminous found in West Virginia didn't go on the strike, the railroads shifted their support to the southern fields, and tightened their grip on the region's coal fields. The southern fields reign lasted until the 1980s when cleaner emission standards forced industries to shift to the cleaner burning subbituminous from the western US, the same coal that still has power today. Because the coal companies controled by the railroads were afraid of striking, they made sure that no other industries really got a chance to settle in the southern fields. When the coal industry fell in the 1980s, many coal towns were left destitute, as they had no industry to fall back on. This is why I am on the fence, as banning Bituminous mining would be the crushing blow to an already crippled region. On the other hand, the mountain top removal method currently employed is very devastating, and just plain stupid. Bituminous coal is worthless junk coal as well. Its only real use nowadays is burning in local powerplants(rarely) and export for use in creating coke, which is used in steel mills due to its high temperature.(Bitumious coal that had been baked in the absense of oxegen in order to seperate the nasty impurities from the carbon, essencially creating pure carbon.)

    My opinion. Create an infrastructure for the southern fields, and then phase out bituminous altogether, and focus on Anthracite, culm, and to a lesser extent than we use now, Subbituminous. Also, do what Schuylkill County(my county) did. Create wind turbines on the ridges in order to suplement the Co-Gen(Anthracite culm powered powerplants) plants. It is green power, at least as green as feasable.

    Oh, and don't believe those retarded comercials about how coal is not clean. ********. They have no facts to back anything up. The dust and impurities that would usually go up the stack can be reburned, until they are completely vaporized. Thus all power plants powered by coal have stack scrubbers, which remove this dust. Really the only thing that comes out the stack is water vapor, and to some extent CO2, though most of that is scrubbed as well.

Share This Page