NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just been thinking, people go on about how bad running out of oil will be. But won't running out of coal be far, far worse? We'll no longer be able to make steel, and we really, really need that.

Why won't we be able to make steel?

We need oil more.

Why won't we be able to make steel?

Steel requires coal, no? About half of the world's coal is used to make steel.

We need oil more.

I dunno, I think the only thing we really need oil for is plastics. It's other uses can be fulfilled with other things.

Why won't we be able to make steel?

They use coal to make steel.

And yes it would be bad for Australia if we ran out of coal though I understand we have large supplies of coal that will last for a few hundred years we don't have to bother.

Steel requires coal, no? About half of the world's coal is used to make steel.

What is the coal used for?

Why is it required in the production of steel?

I dunno, I think the only thing we really need oil for is plastics. It's other uses can be fulfilled with other things.

We can use lime to make plastics.

I dunno, I think the only thing we really need oil for is plastics.

It's used massively in industry and transportation.


It's other uses can be fulfilled with other things.

Yes but that's the same with coal

What is the coal used for?

Why is it required in the production of steel?

Steel is the blending of carbon atoms with iron atoms. The easiest way to do this is to heat iron by using coal, because coal gives off more carbon emissions. Now.. steel is actually an alloy; it does not have a chemical symbol but its generally understood that the higher the carbon content, the stronger the steel.

What is the coal used for?

Why is it required in the production of steel?

Steel is basically iron enriched with carbon; coal provides the carbon.

Steel is basically iron enriched with carbon; coal provides the carbon.

Are there no other sources of carbon?

Don't forget steel can be recycled.

What is the coal used for?

Why is it required in the production of steel?

Being a steel town disciple, with the blue denim in my veins *points for the reference*

Not to mention that I used to work at a steelworks.

We did use coal for the production of steel, when I can remember why, I am pulling a complete blank I will tell you unless someone else does first.

But I doubt that if we didn't need it we wouldn't buy and use so much.

Are there no other sources of carbon?

Charcoal. Charcoal is troublesome because it's less efficient and needs us to fell forests to get it.

Life will be so much easier when everyone is forced to accept the inevitable and we just use babies as fuel. Until that day, we'll just have to take heart in their being a fuck load of coal about.

Basic oxygen steelmaking (BOS, BOF, Linz-Donawitz-Verfahren, LD-converter) is a method of steelmaking in which carbon-rich molten iron is made into steel. The process is an improvement over the historically important Bessemer process. The LD-converter is named after the Austrian placenames Linz and Donawitz (a district of Leoben).

By blowing oxygen through molten pig iron, the carbon content of the alloy is lowered and changes the material into low-carbon steel.

A typical BOS vessel holds about 280 tonnes of steel. The vessel is lined with heat-resistant refractory bricks that can withstand the high temperature of molten metal.

The basic oxygen steel-making process is as follows:

1. Molten iron from a blast furnace is poured into a large refractory-lined container called a ladle;
2. The metal in the ladle is sent directly for basic oxygen steelmaking or to a pretreatment stage. Pretreatment of the blast furnace metal is used to reduce the refining load of sulfur, silicon, and phosphorus. In desulfurising pre treatment, a lance is lowered into the molten iron in the ladle and several hundred kilograms of powdered magnesium are added. Sulfur impurities are reduced to magnesium sulfide in a violent exothermic reaction. The sulfide is then raked off. Similar pretreatment is possible for desiliconisation and dephosphorisation using mill scale(iron oxide) and lime as reagents. The decision to pretreat depends on the quality of the blast furnace metal and the required final quality of the BOS steel.
3. Filling the furnace with the ingredients is called charging. The BOS process is autogenous: the required thermal energy is produced during the process. Maintaining the proper charge balance, the ratio of hotmetal to scrap, is therefore very important. The BOS vessel is one-fifth filled with steel scrap. Molten iron from the ladle is added as required by the charge balance. A typical chemistry of hotmetal charged into the BOS vessel is: 4% C, 0.2-0.8%Si, 0.08%-0.18%P, and 0.01-0.04%S.
4. The vessel is then set upright and a water-cooled lance is lowered down into it. The lance blows 99% pure oxygen onto the steel and iron, igniting the carbon dissolved in the steel and burning it to form carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, causing the temperature to rise to about 1700 °C. This melts the scrap, lowers the carbon content of the molten iron and helps remove unwanted chemical elements. It is this use of oxygen instead of air that improves upon on the Bessemer process, for the nitrogen (and other gases) in air do not react with the charge as oxygen does.
5. Fluxes (burnt lime or dolomite) are fed into the vessel to form slag which absorbs impurities of the steelmaking process. During blowing the metal in the vessel forms an emulsion with the slag, facilitating the refining process. Near the end of the blowing cycle, which takes about 20 minutes, the temperature is measured and samples are taken. The samples are tested and a computer analysis of the steel given within six minutes. A typical chemistry of the blown metal is 0.3-0.6%C, 0.05-0.1%Mn, .01-0.03%Si, 0.01-0.03%S and P.
6. The BOS vessel is tilted again and the steel is poured into a giant ladle. This process is called tapping the steel. The steel is further refined in the ladle furnace, by adding alloying materials to give the steel special properties required by the customer. Sometimes argon or nitrogen gas is bubbled into the ladle to make sure the alloys mix correctly. The steel now contains 0.1-1% carbon. The more carbon in the steel, the harder it is, but it is also more brittle and less flexible.
7. After the steel is removed from the BOS vessel, the slag, filled with impurities, is poured off and cooled.

The first basic oxygen steelmaking process was the LD process developed in 1952 by voestalpine AG in Linz, Austria. Some major steelmaking companies in the US did not convert to this process for decades, with the last Bessemer converter still operating commercially until 1968.

The LD process replaced both the previously common Siemens-Martin process, also known as the open-hearth process, and the Bessemer process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_oxygen_steelmaking

Why do we need coal to make steel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_oxygen_steelmaking

Why do we need coal to make steel?

Did you read the first sentence?

It says "a method of steelmaking in which carbon-rich molten iron is made into steel"

The carbon and iron is mixed first at the Blast Furnace before going to the BOS.

Well, if they're still using so much damn coal, that mean that BOS has a flaw. It's probably prohibitively expensive.

EDIT: Ahh, Blouman answered that question for me.

Are there no other sources of carbon?

I suppose you could burn a ton of trash for he same effect...

Coal is used to make coke. Coke + iron ore + blast furnace = pig iron. (Teh coke is both the fuel and the reducing agent).

Pig iron is used to make steel in a bessmer process.

I suppose you could use something other than carbon, or really heat the ore super motherfucking hot, but I doubt it would be nearly as convenient. And steel is used for everything.

EDIT: Ahh, Blouman answered that question for me.

lol, leave it to someone who grew up in a steel town.

Coal is used to make coke. Coke + iron ore + blast furnace = pig iron. (Teh coke is both the fuel and the reducing agent).

Pig iron is used to make steel in a bessmer process.

I suppose you could use something other than carbon, or really heat the ore super motherfucking hot, but I doubt it would be nearly as convenient. And steel is used for everything.

Yeah, the problem with replacing coal is that steel is used so much and so widely, nothing can replace it effectively. We need to either:

1) Find a new viable way to make steel without coal
2) Find more coal
3) Find a substance better than steel

I dunno, I think the only thing we really need oil for is plastics. It's other uses can be fulfilled with other things.

They've started making bio-degradable plastic bags. I don't know about hard plastics, though.

But yes, other substances can provide us with the other uses of oil. The less we use as fuel, the more we'll have for plastics.

How much coal is there left? I would advise against using it for fuel, since, like oil, the less we use for fuel, the more we have left to make steel, a highly useful material.

Yeah, the problem with replacing coal is that steel is used so much and so widely, nothing can replace it effectively. We need to either:

1) Find a new viable way to make steel without coal
2) Find more coal
3) Find a substance better than steel

Fortunately, between Australia and America there is more than enough coal for several hundred years.

Did you read the first sentence?

It says "a method of steelmaking in which carbon-rich molten iron is made into steel"

The carbon and iron is mixed first at the Blast Furnace before going to the BOS.

I did, I'm just learning here. It's a long time since 'A' level chemistry.

Yeah, the problem with replacing coal is that steel is used so much and so widely, nothing can replace it effectively. We need to either:

1) Find a new viable way to make steel without coal
2) Find more coal
3) Find a substance better than steel

Let's just go back to wood. :p

How much coal is there left? I would advise against using it for fuel, since, like oil, the less we use for fuel, the more we have left to make steel, a highly useful material.

IIRC Australia has large reserves of coal that is meant to last for the next few hundred years at our present rate of consumption.

But yes we should stop using coal for energy though I think Brown coal is more often used over the higher quality stuff. Australia should be looking at reducing its dependency on coal and start looking for other sources which includes nuclear.

I did, I'm just learning here. It's a long time since 'A' level chemistry.

Oh learning, sorry I thought you were trying to prove something. I am a bit on edge today for some reason.

Oh learning, sorry I thought you were trying to prove something. I am a bit on edge today for some reason.

No problem. My tone was off, I sometimes carry an agressive stance over from other threads. Sorry.

We're going to run out of coal.
We're going to run out of oil.
We're going to run out of natural gas.
We're going to run out of uranium.

We're going to run out of all non-renewable resources, probably within the next 200 years. True, there will be lesser deposits still in the ground, but the energy cost to retrieve it will exceed the energy value of consuming it. They're not making any more of any of those substances, and not even Star Trek science will get around that.

Of course, we're talking about 200 years. I'll be dead, and so will you. That makes it not my problem. Nonetheless, no self-respecting futurist can ignore the impact on upcoming generations. We're squandering their inheritance, and we're doing it for silly-ass reasons. They'll hate us for it, and they'll be right.

So ultimately, niggling over which will run out first is kinda pointless, but if you want to build some sort of strategy on silly science, be my guest.

(BTW, oil is necessary for fertilizers, asphalt, synthetic fibers, lubricants, and a huge variety of other manufactured products. Burning the stuff is idiotic.)

We should put all our efforts into space stuffs.

We're going to run out of coal.
We're going to run out of oil.
We're going to run out of natural gas.
We're going to run out of uranium.

We're going to run out of all non-renewable resources, probably within the next 200 years. True, there will be lesser deposits still in the ground, but the energy cost to retrieve it will exceed the energy value of consuming it. They're not making any more of any of those substances, and not even Star Trek science will get around that.

Of course, we're talking about 200 years. I'll be dead, and so will you. That makes it not my problem. Nonetheless, no self-respecting futurist can ignore the impact on upcoming generations. We're squandering their inheritance, and we're doing it for silly-ass reasons. They'll hate us for it, and they'll be right.

So ultimately, niggling over which will run out first is kinda pointless, but if you want to build some sort of strategy on silly science, be my guest.

(BTW, oil is necessary for fertilizers, asphalt, synthetic fibers, lubricants, and a huge variety of other manufactured products. Burning the stuff is idiotic.)

I would agree completely, especially with the last part.

Coal is much more abundent then oil, thats why it is talked about so much less.

Fortunately, between Australia and America there is more than enough coal for several hundred years.

I'm sure that will be a comforting last thought for our descendants. Thinking like that fucked us up with oil now.

We're going to run out of uranium.

We're going to run out of all non-renewable resources, probably within the next 200 years.

I dunno, I think uranium will still last a fair bit longer. Plus, we CAN actually get more of that from off-planet mining.

Radioactivity will save us all.

I'm sure that will be a comforting last thought for our descendants. Thinking like that fucked us up with oil now.

I was meaning it as "Its not as pressing a matter as oil"

Actually, I'd prefer to live in an 17th/18th century type economy than a 19th century one.

Everyone should read the road to Wigan Pier before being all doolally about coal.

I dunno, I think uranium will still last a fair bit longer. Plus, we CAN actually get more of that from off-planet mining.

How do you plan to safely bring radioactive materials from low Earth orbit to the Earth's surface?

Don't forget what happened to the Columbia. Pieces of the shuttle were scattered over three states.

I dunno, I think uranium will still last a fair bit longer. Plus, we CAN actually get more of that from off-planet mining.

Radioactivity will save us all.

We can get carbon from offworld mining too. Quite a lot of carbonaceous asteroids out there. Carbon is generally speaking a pretty common element. If we just had some more delta-v and more space industrialization we could go and get it.

We can get carbon from offworld mining too. Quite a lot of carbonaceous asteroids out there. Carbon is generally speaking a pretty common element. If we just had some more delta-v and more space industrialization we could go and get it.

Carbon, Any type of natural metal; especially iron and copper; and many other resources can be mined from asteroids or other planets.

You don't necessarily need coal to make steel. You need the carbon to make steel, and with energy input from another source you could make steel, albeit less efficiently than with the use of coal. However, given the sheer abundance of energy it's sort of irrelevant where it comes from; coal is used because it's more economical than the alternatives.

We can get carbon from offworld mining too. Quite a lot of carbonaceous asteroids out there. Carbon is generally speaking a pretty common element. If we just had some more delta-v and more space industrialization we could go and get it.

Isn't mining asteroids far more difficult than mining other planets?

Isn't mining asteroids far more difficult than mining other planets?

If you want to send it back to Earth, not very. Both cases involve hazardous environment mining. Miners must have fully enclosed habitats and work gear capable of withstanding solar radiation, lack of atmosphere, micro meteor impacts (high speed dust abrasion for planets), and have many redundancies capable of lasting years.

The difference however, is that getting something from say, Mars to Earth will eat up more energy than towing an asteroid back to Earth orbit and sending down the mined stuff in shuttles. Gravitational pull is problematic like that.

If you want to send it back to Earth, not very. Both cases involve hazardous environment mining. Miners must have fully enclosed habitats and work gear capable of withstanding solar radiation, lack of atmosphere, micro meteor impacts (high speed dust abrasion for planets), and have many redundancies capable of lasting years.


Robots.

Robots.

Yeah, sending people only makes sense if you plan on settling there. Not that it's a bad idea, in fact it's a great one, but it would require a functional economy to justify and fund the construction of viable settlements. That's not even taking in to account terraforming, which would be a necessity if you plan on supporting large self-sustaining populations on any offworld sites.

Robots.

Call me when robots have replaced human miners on Earth first.

AI routines are nowhere near advanced enough to do the job, although technology for at least limited asteroid mining exists.

Call me when robots have replaced human miners on Earth first.

Robots are already used on Earth for mining. Not everywhere, but definitely in places where humans either can't reach or where it is too dangerous to send them. They don't replace miners, but they could if the cost justified it; right now, they're just controlled by human operators, which could be used in the exact same way on Mars or an asteroid or anywhere else.

Realistically, there is no objective barrier to any kind of offworld activity other than the economics of such a move.

Robots are already used on Earth for mining. Not everywhere, but definitely in places where humans either can't reach or where it is too dangerous to send them. They don't replace miners, but they could if the cost justified it; right now, they're just controlled by human operators, which could be used in the exact same way on Mars or an asteroid or anywhere else.

The robots you list are essentially radio controlled machines with their operators working from remote stations with at best, a 0.01 communications second lag between the robot and station. Trying to do that with an earthbound station and an asteroid miner would introduce a light speed lag of what, a few minutes? Either you'll need a really advanced AI or actual miners on station, although maybe from a control ship.


Realistically, there is no objective barrier to any kind of offworld activity other than the economics of such a move.

Economics and politics. Right now, the only people with the financial and infrastructure clout for a serious off world move are government agencies, and none of them will put money into expanding an extremely expensive program that won't deliver big payoffs in the short term.

You need elements of the Cold War, development of technologies and pioneering achievements that might conceivably give a decisive military and propaganda advantage that the other superpowers cannot allow.

Either that or massive tax breaks and accommodating laws for any off world private industry.

Call me when robots have replaced human miners on Earth first.

AI routines are nowhere near advanced enough to do the job, although technology for at least limited asteroid mining exists.

There is no economic incentive right now. Humans are really cheap and abundant for this sort of thing. Even then, outside out the third world, mining has become progressively more mechanized.

But considering the technical difficulties of the habitat and all that, plus the cost of replicating it for each mission, it would probably be worthwhile to develop the robotic capabilities to do this sort of thing remotely. Not to mention the training costs of all those crews.

I'm not suggesting that there is going to be some kind of autonomous positronic brain thing roaming the asteroid belt. Just a sort of 'super voyager' that could do mining stuff. Maybe it would be even more practical just to remotely attach the thing and tow it back to nearer earth before slicing it up.

There is no economic incentive right now. Humans are really cheap and abundant for this sort of thing. Even then, outside out the third world, mining has become progressively more mechanized.

But considering the technical difficulties of the habitat and all that, plus the cost of replicating it for each mission, it would probably be worthwhile to develop the robotic capabilities to do this sort of thing remotely. Not to mention the training costs of all those crews.


Mechanized yes, but you still need human operators, if not as many as before. Taking this example to the asteroid concept would mean a mother vessel with a small highly trained crew complement and a large store of remote mining drones. The habitat issue still needs to be addressed, if not as huge as with a purely human run mining op.


I'm not suggesting that there is going to be some kind of autonomous positronic brain thing roaming the asteroid belt. Just a sort of 'super voyager' that could do mining stuff. Maybe it would be even more practical just to remotely attach the thing and tow it back to nearer earth before slicing it up.

Much more practical to haul it back to low Earth orbit and slice it up there. You'll still need the same amount of reaction mass to bring it back anyway, whether you cut it up here or out in the asteroid belt. But if you bring it to low Earth orbit, you're much closer to backup and extra mining assistance for lower costs.

I've always found it a tad daft that we don't haul mineable asteroids back to Earth for mining, so long as it's all well-controlled as much as possible.

Mechanized yes, but you still need human operators, if not as many as before. Taking this example to the asteroid concept would mean a mother vessel with a small highly trained crew complement and a large store of remote mining drones. The habitat issue still needs to be addressed, if not as huge as with a purely human run mining op.



Much more practical to haul it back to low Earth orbit and slice it up there. You'll still need the same amount of reaction mass to bring it back anyway, whether you cut it up here or out in the asteroid belt. But if you bring it to low Earth orbit, you're much closer to backup and extra mining assistance for lower costs.

It can probably be towed back - if properly surveyed - completely remotely. Those NASA dudes are smarty pants at that sort of stuff.

And once in low earth orbit, I don't see the problem of using remotes to do the work.

And even if you wanted to carve it up in the belt, I don't imagine the lag would be all that problematic. You'd just have to be really methodical about doing it.

We're going to run out of coal.
Source?

I personally don't see this happening in near future.
We're going to run out of uranium.
This on the other hand is utterly inaccurate.

A wiki quote:
In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that the world supply of uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a form of renewable energy. He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by naturally-replenished uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years. These reactors use uranium-238, which is more common than the uranium-235 required by conventional reactors.

(BTW, oil is necessary for fertilizers, asphalt, synthetic fibers, lubricants, and a huge variety of other manufactured products.
Burning the stuff is idiotic.)
Aye, using oil as fuel is irresponsible at best.

I've just been thinking, people go on about how bad running out of oil will be. But won't running out of coal be far, far worse? We'll no longer be able to make steel, and we really, really need that.

We won't run out of coal anytime soon. If the good stuff runs out, there is still a crap load under my house and the rest of my region. It just has high amounts of sulfur in it, making it harder to use, because its not as clean.

I wouldnt mind. the US has the largest reserves of coal in the world. And it would be nice to be the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Form the organization of coal exporting countries. OCEC with Russia and a few others with big coal reserves.

I wouldnt mind. the US has the largest reserves of coal in the world. And it would be nice to be the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Form the organization of coal exporting countries. OCEC with Russia and a few others with big coal reserves.

I like coal. I really do. I used to find chunks of it in my back yard all the time.

I would approve of the OCEC, because I want the rest of the world to know the joys of coal. Or something like that. :p

I like coal. I really do. I used to find chunks of it in my back yard all the time.

I would approve of the OCEC, because I want the rest of the world to know the joys of coal. Or something like that. :p

yes show them the joy of Coal at 600 dollars a short ton.

I gotta admit, I find the "we're not gonna run out of coal any time soon" approach to be incredible weird coming from the same people who are all hopped up about oil. It's EXACTLY the same issue, and you guys are doing the same stupid thing as our ancestors and not thinking about it until it's too late.

I gotta admit, I find the "we're not gonna run out of coal any time soon" approach to be incredible weird coming from the same people who are all hopped up about oil. It's EXACTLY the same issue, and you guys are doing the same stupid thing as our ancestors and not thinking about it until it's too late.

Well, let's just explore this a bit. What, exactly, should we be doing in regards to coal?

As I understand it, we have about 400 years worth of coal left. So no worries there. If we run out of oil, we can bring back the humble steam train! :D

Thinking like that fucked us up with oil now.

Not really. Everyone's been talking about how oil is going to run out in the next ten years pretty much since the 60's.

I gotta admit, I find the "we're not gonna run out of coal any time soon" approach to be incredible weird coming from the same people who are all hopped up about oil. It's EXACTLY the same issue, and you guys are doing the same stupid thing as our ancestors and not thinking about it until it's too late.

Actually its not the same issue. The issue with oil is that it is a cornerstone of our economy. If we take out oil suddenly, everything falls apart. Granted, if you take out coal, there will be a hell of a time trying to have a nice civilization and all, but I don't think coal is as much of a fundamental in our society. If we run out of oil now, we are effed in everything from energy, to plastic, to gasoline, to synthetics. If we miss out on coal, our steel industry will collapse(like it already hasn't done that?) and we would have to find a new heating source.

As I understand it, we have about 400 years worth of coal left. So no worries there. If we run out of oil, we can bring back the humble steam train! :D
The number is around 250 years at current rate of consumption.

Which is enough to substitute coal, with for example uranium or water, as an energy source.

Source?The number is around 250 years at current rate of consumption.

Why are you asking me for a source on a generic statement, when you provide your own specific statement that agrees with me completely?


To all those who see space resources as a possible solution: we're going to need a technological breakthrough that is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the current state of the art before that becomes practical. I'm all for it, and will happily fund blue-sky research in hopes of stumbling across the solution in my lifetime ... but I'm not expecting it to happen. I could see it happening in the next 25 to 500 years. If we as a race last that long, that is.

Realistically, there is no objective barrier to any kind of offworld activity other than the economics of such a move.
Economics is a big deal. If you have to spend more resources to mine something than what you gain from mining, then doing so will only cause losses.

Today it would be barely profitable to pick up a large pile of refined 24 carat gold bricks lying on the Moon. And even then, only if it's a very large pile, to use economy of scale.



Iron, coal, copper, anything else below $1,000,000/tonne is pretty much out of the question, probably for centuries at least, unless we stumble upon some sort of treknomagicks.

As long as we don't run out of cool, there is no need for worry.

As long as we don't run out of cool, there is no need for worry.

Oh, there is no risk of that. ;)

Oh, there is no risk of that. ;)

*chills*

I could see it happening in the next 25 to 500 years. If we as a race last that long, that is.

Statistics say no! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument) :)

Economics is a big deal. If you have to spend more resources to mine something than what you gain from mining, then doing so will only cause losses.

Today it would be barely profitable to pick up a large pile of refined 24 carat gold bricks lying on the Moon. And even then, only if it's a very large pile, to use economy of scale.



Iron, coal, copper, anything else below $1,000,000/tonne is pretty much out of the question, probably for centuries at least, unless we stumble upon some sort of treknomagicks.


yo everybody listen to V10. And before anyone brings up the ZOMG ASTEROID PGMS TRILLION DOLLARS GOOGLE RON PAUL - the guy who came up with that ended up disowning that particular idea because it would flood the market, etc.

...and so will you.
What? No! I'll live forever! FOREVER! Muahahahahahahaha!

Why are you asking me for a source on a generic statement, when you provide your own specific statement that agrees with me completely?
Well, I did some digging myself.

The point is that quarter of a millennium is more than enough time to phase coal out.

To all those who see space resources as a possible solution: we're going to need a technological breakthrough that is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the current state of the art before that becomes practical.
Nonesense....in a sense.

If we would invest to fusion technology in any similar amount as to other "alternatives" and would found a permanent lunar base, manned or unmanned, collecting HE3 we would solve entire energy problem in 3-4 decades max. Infact, even with current technology and cost rates hauling He3 from moon would be profitable assuming we had functioning fusion power technology.

Further down the line, building a mass driver on lunar surface would enable us to distribute resources across the solar system with practically zero cost. Although such rail could be built using current technology the practical use for one - through industry @ moon - is still around a century away.

What? No! I'll live forever! FOREVER! Muahahahahahahaha!

Immortal eh? Sounds fun.

What is the coal used for?

Why is it required in the production of steel?
steel is a mixture of iron ore and carbon (usually in the form of coal) u can use other substance but its much harder to do and those other substances tend to be rarer. you could use pig iron instead of steel but its not as good. Think very very low grade steel

If we would invest to fusion technology in any similar amount as to other "alternatives" and would found a permanent lunar base, manned or unmanned, collecting HE3 we would solve entire energy problem in 3-4 decades max. Infact, even with current technology and cost rates hauling He3 from moon would be profitable assuming we had functioning fusion power technology.

Further down the line, building a mass driver on lunar surface would enable us to distribute resources across the solar system with practically zero cost. Although such rail could be built using current technology the practical use for one - through industry @ moon - is still around a century away.

1) You get the He3 out of the outer solar system, either Neptune or Uranus. Lunar He3 is pretty sparse, you need to process a LOT of regolith for little gas. Where as you can get 10 tonnes of He3 back from the gas giants (transit time is longer but this is why you run more then one mission).

We don't need He3 however. Fusion rockets sure. But earth based plants? You burn D-D or D-T. Take your pick. We have enough deuterium in the ocean for something like two million years of use.


2) Mass driver we can build. Trouble is catching the payload. They wanted to use a big kevlar net at first but apparently pallets of regolith smacking into it at kilometers per second was a Bad Thing(tm).

1) You get the He3 out of the outer solar system, either Neptune or Uranus. Lunar He3 is pretty sparse, you need to process a LOT of regolith for little gas. Where as you can get 10 tonnes of He3 back from the gas giants (transit time is longer but this is why you run more then one mission).

3 words:
- Technology
- Cost
- Time

With the technology available now or for several centuries we can't harvest gas giants for He3.

Lunar travel is extremely cheap compared to what you're suggesting and takes days instead of months/years.

Although you're correct that ultimately gas giant harvesting for inter*stellar* travel could make sense.

We don't need He3 however. Fusion rockets sure. But earth based plants? You burn D-D or D-T. Take your pick. We have enough deuterium in the ocean for something like two million years of use.
He-3 has a significant benefit, namely the low/no neutron yield reaction, compared to the alternatives.

It's true that if you don't care about radioactivity D-D, D-T reactions are OK but you know how paranoid and misinformed the public is in these matters.
2) Mass driver we can build. Trouble is catching the payload. They wanted to use a big kevlar net at first but apparently pallets of regolith smacking into it at kilometers per second was a Bad Thing(tm).
Atmosphere works as a break, same way as with other returning spacecraft. This works for Venus, Earth & Mars.

Also, there's no reason why the payload would have to be inert - The mass driver would take care of giving off enough energy for the transition orbit while a modest engine could be used to obtain desired trajectory.

Well, let's just explore this a bit. What, exactly, should we be doing in regards to coal?

More than nothing. At least, let's talk about it.

As long as we don't run out of cool, there is no need for worry.

THE POLAR ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!!!! :eek:

With the technology available now or for several centuries we can't harvest gas giants for He3.

We can do it now or say...twenty years if you really want to be a nazi about R&D times.

Burning it is the problem. Getting it is easy (comparably).

Steel is the blending of carbon atoms with iron atoms. The easiest way to do this is to heat iron by using coal, because coal gives off more carbon emissions. Now.. steel is actually an alloy; it does not have a chemical symbol but its generally understood that the higher the carbon content, the stronger the steel.

steel is a mixture of iron ore and carbon (usually in the form of coal) u can use other substance but its much harder to do and those other substances tend to be rarer. you could use pig iron instead of steel but its not as good. Think very very low grade steel

The thing is that we need the reductive atmosphere of a coal fire to turn the iron salts in iron ore into pig iron.

Of course we can do it in other ways to like using charcoal or trying an electrolytic approach, but both are economically unfeasible as far as I know.

More than nothing. At least, let's talk about it.

Well, what can we do about running out of coal that we can't do about running out of oil? Don't you see? It's the same discussion.

steel is a mixture of iron ore and carbon (usually in the form of coal) u can use other substance but its much harder to do and those other substances tend to be rarer. you could use pig iron instead of steel but its not as good. Think very very low grade steel

Any kind of carbon is good, but it's more energy intensive than using coal.

Personally, I'd look in to obtaining carbon from CO2 and using it in steel production; that would create a closed loop that would greatly reduce the environmental impact of steelmaking. It would be more expensive and more energy intensive, but if the energy comes from the right sources it would be a great idea.

Any kind of carbon is good, but it's more energy intensive than using coal.

Personally, I'd look in to obtaining carbon from CO2 and using it in steel production; that would create a closed loop that would greatly reduce the environmental impact of steelmaking. It would be more expensive and more energy intensive, but if the energy comes from the right sources it would be a great idea.

I thought of that too, but I'm sure it can't be feasible.

As I understand it, we have about 400 years worth of coal left. So no worries there. If we run out of oil, we can bring back the humble steam train! :D

At present estimates. Again, I'd like to emphasize the fact that we continue to produce more oil than was initially estimated in years past.

Oh, and this little gem: Based upon estimates derived by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in the North Sea, there are upwards of three trillion tons of coal off the Norweigian coast alone. Proven reserves of coal right now are 900 billion tons, so that means there's at least three times that amount in one location, let alone anywhere else.

Now, getting to that coal will be tough, but honestly that's never been a barrier in the past. Fields previously untouchable are routinely produced these days without a second thought; the environmental effects of all that coal are of course godawful, but it's not running out.

We have pleeeenty of coal left.

I thought of that too, but I'm sure it can't be feasible.

Technically feasible, sure. Economically feasible, probably not; chances are, by the time it would be possible to use that method, others would have long since been discovered that would surpass it.

Any kind of carbon is good, but it's more energy intensive than using coal.

Personally, I'd look in to obtaining carbon from CO2 and using it in steel production; that would create a closed loop that would greatly reduce the environmental impact of steelmaking. It would be more expensive and more energy intensive, but if the energy comes from the right sources it would be a great idea.

closed loops always lose more energy then they generate. something about law of thermodynamics.

closed loops always lose more energy then they generate. something about law of thermodynamics.

Well, everything loses more energy than it generates. Of course, energy is so abundant it's not really a problem.

Well, everything loses more energy than it generates. Of course, energy is so abundant it's not really a problem.

you end up releasing more CO2 then you pull out of the air.

you end up releasing more CO2 then you pull out of the air.

I was thinking more along the lines of using CO2 captured from sources rather than removing it from the air.

take CO2 from the ocean. There is a balance between the CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean. The ratio is about 1:50

the error in asuming tecnology depends on how we're familiar with doing it is that we weren't always familiar with how we're doing it now.

we've got, supposedly, somewhere arround 40 years of economically viable oil, i mean the whole earth does, and america has no more of a devine right to it then the rest of the planet. coal, the estimate i'm familiar with is something like about 200 years, but i really hope we get over everything having to be controlled by corporate economic intrests, because if we don't kill ourselves with oil, going to coal fired automobiles will surely do for us.