3 ms·

> Most projections suggest coal use is going to plummet over the next 50 years, both because we have better options and because we have little choice. Sure. Al

> Most projections suggest coal use is going to plummet over the next 50 years, both because we have better options and because we have little choice. Sure. Already industrialized civilizations have better options. But if you're starting from scratch, you don't get to jump immediately to photovoltaics or whatever. > and we’re running into environmental issues by burning ~1/1,000th of it. But which 1/1000th? We didn't dig out the deepest coal first. "Economically viable coal" by 21st century standards isn't the same "economically viable coal" by the standards at the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Retric 3y ago
> But which 1/1000th? We didn't dig out the deepest coal first. "Economically viable coal" by 21st century standards isn't the same "economically viable coal" by the standards at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Across geologic timescales what’s accessible changes. It makes a huge difference if deposits are above or below sea level for example. The Industrial Revolution kicked off in a small geological area which would have looked very different even 100k years before. Even beyond that we’re actually more selective not less when it comes to coal mines. Unlike say copper/silver/gold/etc there’s so much coal that what would have been a perfectly viable mine 150 years ago simply isn’t today. Larger equipment means fewer workers but it also requires thicker coal seams. Similarly we’re a lot more picky about sulfur content etc. That’s also somewhat true of stuff copper, gold, etc. The minimum concentration required to make ore viable has decreased dramatically, but only when there’s huge quantities of ore. Plenty of potential mines could be worked by hand, but can’t complete with industrial scale mines or be used as one. PS: It’s worth remembering even if things aren’t quite as efficient they can be viable. Building canals takes more effort than rail lines but they can still transport bulk goods on the cheap using minimal technology. Similarly solar smelting can reach extreme temperatures, just not 24/7. Wood plus just about any rock can get you to steel with enough effort and know how. It might take slightly longer but our history isn’t the only way to get to transistors and spacecraft etc.

Retric 3y ago

> But which 1/1000th? We didn't dig out the deepest coal first. "Economically viable coal" by 21st century standards isn't the same "economically viable coal" by the standards at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Across geologic timescales what’s accessible changes. It makes a huge difference if deposits are above or below sea level for example. The Industrial Revolution kicked off in a small geological area which would have looked very different even 100k years before. Even beyond that we’re actually more selective not less when it comes to coal mines. Unlike say copper/silver/gold/etc there’s so much coal that what would have been a perfectly viable mine 150 years ago simply isn’t today. Larger equipment means fewer workers but it also requires thicker coal seams. Similarly we’re a lot more picky about sulfur content etc. That’s also somewhat true of stuff copper, gold, etc. The minimum concentration required to make ore viable has decreased dramatically, but only when there’s huge quantities of ore. Plenty of potential mines could be worked by hand, but can’t complete with industrial scale mines or be used as one. PS: It’s worth remembering even if things aren’t quite as efficient they can be viable. Building canals takes more effort than rail lines but they can still transport bulk goods on the cheap using minimal technology. Similarly solar smelting can reach extreme temperatures, just not 24/7. Wood plus just about any rock can get you to steel with enough effort and know how. It might take slightly longer but our history isn’t the only way to get to transistors and spacecraft etc.