Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is another article about the collapse of the coal industry:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/04/the_u_k_is_quitting_coal_poorer_countries_aren_t.html

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

By definition AT is an organization and cannot do anything - people can
do things.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:

> I'm not sure how you can say that AT never invented anything.
> For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT) was one of the preeminent research
> labs in the world.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> *At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type,
> developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including **radio
> astronomy **, the **transistor
> **, the **laser
> **, **information theory
> **, the operating
> system **Unix **, the programming
> languages **C
> ** and **C++
> **. Eight Nobel Prizes have been
> awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.**[8]
> *
>
>- *1937: **Clinton J. Davisson
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics for demonstrating the wave nature of matter.*
>- *1956: **John Bardeen **,
>**Walter H. Brattain
>**, and **William
>Shockley ** received
>the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first **transistors
>**.*
>- *1977: **Philip W. Anderson
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics for developing an improved understanding of the electronic
>structure of glass and magnetic materials.*
>- *1978: **Arno A. Penzias
>** and **Robert W.
>Wilson ** shared
>the Nobel Prize in Physics. Penzias and Wilson were cited for their
>discovering **cosmic microwave background radiation
>**,
>a nearly uniform glow that fills the **Universe
>** in the microwave band of
>the radio spectrum.*
>- *1997: **Steven Chu **
>shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for developing methods to cool and trap
>atoms with laser light.*
>- *1998: **Horst Störmer
>**, **Robert
>Laughlin **, and **Daniel
>Tsui **, were awarded the
>Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering and explaining the **fractional
>quantum Hall effect
>**.*
>- *2009: **Willard S. Boyle
>**, **George E. Smith
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics with **Charles K. Kao
>**. Boyle and Smith were
>cited for inventing **charge-coupled device
>** (CCD)
>semiconductor imaging sensors.*
>- *2014: **Eric Betzig **
>shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in super-resolved
>fluorescence microscopy which he began pursuing while at Bell Labs.*
>
> *The **Turing Award ** has
> twice been won by Bell Labs researchers:*
>
>- *1968: **Richard Hamming
>** for his work on
>numerical methods, automatic coding systems, and error-detecting and
>error-correcting codes.*
>- *1983: **Ken Thompson **
>and **Dennis Ritchie **
>for their work on operating system theory, and for developing **Unix
>**.*
>
>
> Granted they were spun out of AT in 1990's, but still a very impressive
> list.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 4/14/16 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> Jed,
> Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I gave.
> The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
> The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to shift
> and therefore they grow.
>
> AT has never invented anything.
> Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who 

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Joe Hughes]

I'm not sure how you can say that AT never invented anything.
For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT) was one of the preeminent research 
labs in the world.


From Wikipedia:

/At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type, 
developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including //radio 
astronomy //, the 
//transistor //, the //laser 
//, //information theory 
//, the operating 
system //Unix //, the programming 
languages //C 
//and //C++ 
//. Eight Nobel Prizes have been 
awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.//^[8] 
 / //


 * /1937: //Clinton J. Davisson
   //shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for demonstrating the wave nature of matter./
 * /1956: //John Bardeen
   //, //Walter H. Brattain
   //, and //William
   Shockley //received
   the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first //transistors
   //./
 * /1977: //Philip W. Anderson
   //shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for developing an improved understanding of the
   electronic structure of glass and magnetic materials./
 * /1978: //Arno A. Penzias
   //and //Robert W.
   Wilson //shared
   the Nobel Prize in Physics. Penzias and Wilson were cited for their
   discovering //cosmic microwave background radiation
   //,
   a nearly uniform glow that fills the //Universe
   //in the microwave band of
   the radio spectrum./
 * /1997: //Steven Chu
   //shared the Nobel Prize
   in Physics for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser
   light./
 * /1998: //Horst Störmer
   //, //Robert
   Laughlin //, and
   //Daniel Tsui //, were
   awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering and explaining
   the //fractional quantum Hall effect
   //./
 * /2009: //Willard S. Boyle
   //, //George E.
   Smith //shared the
   Nobel Prize in Physics with //Charles K. Kao
   //. Boyle and Smith
   were cited for inventing //charge-coupled device
   //(CCD)
   semiconductor imaging sensors./
 * /2014: //Eric Betzig
   //shared the Nobel Prize
   in Chemistry for his work in super-resolved fluorescence microscopy
   which he began pursuing while at Bell Labs./

//

/The //Turing Award //has 
twice been won by Bell Labs researchers:/


//

 * /1968: //Richard Hamming
   //for his work on
   numerical methods, automatic coding systems, and error-detecting and
   error-correcting codes./
 * /1983: //Ken Thompson
   //and //Dennis Ritchie
   //for their work on
   operating system theory, and for developing //Unix
   //./

/
/Granted they were spun out of AT in 1990's, but still a very 
impressive list.


Joe

On 4/14/16 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I 
gave. The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to 
shift and therefore they grow.


AT has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who and where as it 
was many people over decades getting there - I guess the selenium 
diode was a German invention in the 30is.
Same thing for HP and TI, which actually are examples of companies 
that grow because of seeing the shift. I do not believe that there is 
a given formula for all small and all large companies.
I do know that large corporation become stagnant and inflexible at 
some point in time. That would be OK. The problem is that we do not 
let them follow the natural part and go belly up. The government comes 

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Chem,
Just for the fun of it; I did my military time servicing those analog
computers as I called them. They were vacuum tubes and mechanical devices.
It is partly the fact because I am old and partly because the Swedish Navy
was less sophisticated then the US ditto.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Just keeping Jed honest:
>
> First calculator: 2000 BC Inventor: Sumerians
>
>
> http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/history-of-the-calculator.php
>
> First Electronic Calculator:
>
> The story of the electronic calculator really begins in the late 1930s as
> the world began to prepare for renewed war. To calculate the trigonometry
> required to drop bombs ‘into a pickle barrel’ from 30,000 feet, to hit a
> 30-knot Japanese warship with a torpedo or to bring down a diving Stuka
> with an anti aircraft gun required constantly updated automated solutions.  
> These
> were provided respectively by the Sperry-Norden bombsight, the US Navy’s
> Torpedo Data Computer and the Kerrison Predictor AA fire control system.
>
> All were basically mechanical devices using geared wheels and rotating
> cylinders, but producing electrical outputs that could be linked to weapon
> systems.  During the Second World War, the challenges of code-breaking
> produced the first all-electronic computer, *Colossus*. But this was a
> specialised machine that basically performed “exclusive or” (XOR) Boolean
> algorithms.
> :)
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>>
>>
>> So did many small companies.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>>> . . .
>>>
>>
>> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
>> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
>> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>>
>> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I gave.
The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to shift
and therefore they grow.

AT has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who and where as it was
many people over decades getting there - I guess the selenium diode was a
German invention in the 30is.
Same thing for HP and TI, which actually are examples of companies that
grow because of seeing the shift. I do not believe that there is a given
formula for all small and all large companies.
I do know that large corporation become stagnant and inflexible at some
point in time. That would be OK. The problem is that we do not let them
follow the natural part and go belly up. The government comes in and 'save
the jobs'.
Really they create a monster with total inflexibility.

You know there are many small companies that are inflexible. That is
because they are often managed by one individual and if he is inflexible
then the company will be and probably not do so good.
Unfortunately there are stubborn inflexible people that cannot see the
forest for all the trees.. No, Jed small companies do not lack flexibility
in general and to survive they need to be flexible.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>
>
> So did many small companies.
>
>
>
>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>> . . .
>>
>
> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>
> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[ChemE Stewart]

Just keeping Jed honest:

First calculator: 2000 BC Inventor: Sumerians

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/history-of-the-calculator.php

First Electronic Calculator:

The story of the electronic calculator really begins in the late 1930s as
the world began to prepare for renewed war. To calculate the trigonometry
required to drop bombs ‘into a pickle barrel’ from 30,000 feet, to hit a
30-knot Japanese warship with a torpedo or to bring down a diving Stuka
with an anti aircraft gun required constantly updated automated
solutions.  These
were provided respectively by the Sperry-Norden bombsight, the US Navy’s
Torpedo Data Computer and the Kerrison Predictor AA fire control system.

All were basically mechanical devices using geared wheels and rotating
cylinders, but producing electrical outputs that could be linked to weapon
systems.  During the Second World War, the challenges of code-breaking
produced the first all-electronic computer, *Colossus*. But this was a
specialised machine that basically performed “exclusive or” (XOR) Boolean
algorithms.
:)

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>
>
> So did many small companies.
>
>
>
>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>> . . .
>>
>
> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>
> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>

So did many small companies.



> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility .
> . .
>

The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI. Those
were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.

Small companies often lack flexibility.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Chris Zell]

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

Jones,

There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum tube / 
transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty of big 
companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.

This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility

You seem to be describing the German Mittelstand concept.

My interest in buckyballs currently concerns taking the speculative “C60/ olive 
oil” supplement.  To stave off aging, maybe.

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,

There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.

This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
and there is always someone with power, who says ; "too small", "to risky"
, "will not cover any of the losses- let us steal this contract and survive
another year. You need to break out the good opportunity and make them be
concerned about their new (mostly much smaller) business. Otherwise the
established will say; "what did I tell you", at every obstacles that turn
up and close that little embryo that just divert focus and steal resources.

It is like children. Small children small problems - big children big
problems.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ken,
>
>
>
> Amazing that the coal industry itself has been so near-sighted about the
> how to proceed. They should have been looking for value-added alternatives
> in the 50s at the start of the nuclear age and secured their own Manhattan
> project for coal redeployment.
>
>
>
> Emblematic of the ignorance: There was a report some time ago that one of
> Russia’s major coal deposits was absolutely loaded with bucky-balls and
> nano-diamonds – already fully formed… and yet for decades this extremely
> valuable resource was used to make coke at ~$20/ton and is now almost
> depleted.
>
>
>
> Talk about turning diamonds into ashes….
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Deboer
>
>
>
> That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on
> feasible ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs,
> activated carbon, graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C.
> Xiang et al (J. Tour's group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of
> graphene quantum dots. Nat. Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield,
> 2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric acid treatment of carbonaceous material
> prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 US pat. "Mass production of carbon
> nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient large scale synthesis of
> graphene from coal and its electrical properties studies. J Nanosci.
> Nanotech. 12:1-4.
>
>   I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without
> difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to
> do about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as
> well as Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high
> value product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal
> burning business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the
> Governor and staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much
> smaller amount of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds
> of much higher value, more benign, products seems like it should be a
> no-brainer, but
>
>
>
> cheers, ken
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>
>
> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
> tons per year . . .
>
>
>
> I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton
> of steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of
> materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the
> steel we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles,
> trucks and railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel
> production that is. Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12%
> of steel:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865
>
>
>
> So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad
> cars, bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a
> lightweight, stronger replacement for steel. To replace that much steel
> with an equivalent mass of coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is
> lighter) it would take 6% of the mass of coal we now mine. That will not
> save the industry or preserve employment.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke
> production.   Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left
> over.
>

I do not see how there would be more than you get from burning the coal. I
suppose it will be less polluting than burning it. All that stuff stays in
the tank.

Since you are not burning it, perhaps you could more easily recover the
sulfur, heavy metals etc. and sell them.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Chris Zell]

Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke production.   
Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left over.

You might want to site the factory in China or Africa………

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jones Beene]

Ken,

 

Amazing that the coal industry itself has been so near-sighted about the how to 
proceed. They should have been looking for value-added alternatives in the 50s 
at the start of the nuclear age and secured their own Manhattan project for 
coal redeployment. 

 

Emblematic of the ignorance: There was a report some time ago that one of 
Russia’s major coal deposits was absolutely loaded with bucky-balls and 
nano-diamonds – already fully formed… and yet for decades this extremely 
valuable resource was used to make coke at ~$20/ton and is now almost depleted. 

 

Talk about turning diamonds into ashes….

 

 

From: Ken Deboer 

 

That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on feasible 
ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs, activated carbon, 
graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C. Xiang et al (J. Tour's 
group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of graphene quantum dots. Nat. 
Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield, 2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric 
acid treatment of carbonaceous material prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 
US pat. "Mass production of carbon nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient 
large scale synthesis of graphene from coal and its electrical properties 
studies. J Nanosci. Nanotech. 12:1-4.

  I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without 
difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to do 
about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as well as 
Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high value 
product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal burning 
business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the Governor and 
staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much smaller amount 
of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds of much higher 
value, more benign, products seems like it should be a no-brainer, but

 

cheers, ken 

 

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I wrote:

 

2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less than 
the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th. World 
production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion tons per 
year . . .

 

I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton of 
steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of 
materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the steel 
we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles, trucks and 
railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel production that is. 
Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12% of steel:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865

 

So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad cars, 
bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a lightweight, stronger 
replacement for steel. To replace that much steel with an equivalent mass of 
coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is lighter) it would take 6% of the 
mass of coal we now mine. That will not save the industry or preserve 
employment.

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Ken Deboer]

That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on
feasible ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs,
activated carbon, graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C.
Xiang et al (J. Tour's group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of
graphene quantum dots. Nat. Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield,
2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric acid treatment of carbonaceous material
prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 US pat. "Mass production of carbon
nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient large scale synthesis of
graphene from coal and its electrical properties studies. J Nanosci.
Nanotech. 12:1-4.
  I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without
difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to
do about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as
well as Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high
value product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal
burning business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the
Governor and staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much
smaller amount of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds
of much higher value, more benign, products seems like it should be a
no-brainer, but

cheers, ken

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
>> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
>> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
>> tons per year . . .
>>
>
> I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton
> of steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of
> materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the
> steel we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles,
> trucks and railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel
> production that is. Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12%
> of steel:
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865
>
> So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad
> cars, bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a
> lightweight, stronger replacement for steel. To replace that much steel
> with an equivalent mass of coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is
> lighter) it would take 6% of the mass of coal we now mine. That will not
> save the industry or preserve employment.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
> tons per year . . .
>

I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton
of steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of
materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the
steel we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles,
trucks and railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel
production that is. Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12%
of steel:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865

So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad cars,
bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a lightweight,
stronger replacement for steel. To replace that much steel with an
equivalent mass of coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is lighter) it
would take 6% of the mass of coal we now mine. That will not save the
industry or preserve employment.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Coal could be an ideal replacement for imported steel…that is, when it is
> in the form of graphite fiber or nanotubes. Nanotubes are 10 times
> stronger than steel by weight. A significant % of hot rolled steel comes
> from abroad, and with enough incentives, directed and aimed directly at 
> imported
> steel . . .
>
That is an interesting idea. It may be worth doing strictly on the
technical merits of the plan. Graphite fiber is now used to build airplanes
instead of aluminum, so it has advantages. Large-scale production would
lower the cost. It might even become cost-effective for things like bridges
or houses.

However, I do not think this would do much to preserve employment. Just on
the face of it the numbers do not look promising. Here are the reasons.

1. Employment will fall the matter what happens. Coal mining is an ideal
target for robots. It is dangerous, difficult, repetitive, and human miners
are paid a lot. The number of coal miners is already a fraction of what it
was in the past.

https://anticap.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/war-on-coal-miners/

In recent years, production has soared while employment did not increase at
all:

https://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/0498/0498g5a2.htm

2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
tons per year:

https://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/crude-steel-production.html

Carbon fiber is lighter than steel, so you would need somewhat less than
1.6 billion tons of raw material per year.

Coal production is 7.925 billion tons per year. See p. 15:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf

It will take a long time to transition away from coal as fuel, and it would
take a long time to begin manufacturing millions of tons of carbon fiber.
But in the end, if coal production for fuel falls to zero and carbon fiber
replaces all steel, you consume only about 1/5th as much coal.

This reminds me of the argument that with cold fusion we will stop
consuming oil as fuel, but the oil industry will survive because 20% of oil
goes to plastic feedstock and other non-energy use. This is incorrect. The
industry will not survive. A natural resource raw material extraction
industry that is built to provide X amount of material cannot survive
producing only 20% of X. I mean that the oil tankers, refineries, oil pipes
and so on would not be economical to operate at 20% of capacity. You would
have to build new ones on a smaller scale. The old industry would probably
go bankrupt before you finished downsizing it, the way passenger ships went
bankrupt after airplanes killed off ocean liners, and before the cruise
ship industry emerged.

Actually, with cold fusion it would probably be more cost-efficient and
safer to synthesize oil from garbage and water, or air and water.

3. Also, I do not see why this would necessarily help US employment. I
think the Chinese would master this technology as quickly as we do, and
they would soon be exporting cheap graphite fiber material. They mastered
the production of PV cells, which is a high-tech business. China is by far
the world's largest coal producer. (See p. 15 referenced above.) Their
production is used domestically; they are a net importer. Their coal mining
industry is in deep trouble.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

Daniel Rocha wrote:

Save for the workers, is that good or bad?

It is bad for the workers and good for everyone else. In my opinion, the 
workers deserve help from the rest of society.

It does not have to be “either-or” (workers vs environment) except under blind 
adherence to an archaic form of capitalism. There is an alternative and we 
could be far more farsighted about protecting jobs and protecting the 
environment at the same time – but it is intrusive and yes, it smacks of 
socialism in a political year. 

The simple solution to the Coal dilemma – which can both protect coal jobs, 
actually add other jobs, and improve the environment AND lower the Trade 
Deficit - costs too much for private industry to tackle and it involves heavy 
intervention to accelerate mass production of structural carbon, as well as 
incentives to use it – and the automobile is the obvious target for this (due 
to weight saving) and well as aerospace.

Coal could be an ideal replacement for imported steel…that is, when it is in 
the form of graphite fiber or nanotubes. Nanotubes are 10 times stronger than 
steel by weight. A significant % of hot rolled steel comes from abroad, and 
with enough incentives, directed and aimed directly at imported steel, it could 
be completely replaced with some form of structure carbon - and the bonus is 
lighter weight, more jobs and better fuel economy… but of course, the downside 
is more government intervention. 

The cost would be high initially, but with megaton mass production and 
subsidies let’s face it – nothing is cheaper than coal… and coal is mostly 
carbon. The initial cost would be worth it, due to fringe benefits. We are not 
talking about carbon steel, but something like carbon nanotube reinforced 
plastic bodied cars, as a starter. 

Change the electric car subsidy to include the CRP subsidy (using US coal) and 
the initial change can be done with those new Teslas and the ones from GM, if 
they do not “Bolt” (an even worse name than the No-va). The Chinese would not 
like this but oddly this is one proposal that both the Koch Brothers and Bernie 
would embrace. Why do we have to base every decision on China Trade? It is not 
really “free trade” now and it never has been.
 

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Daniel Rocha]

It happened in China, but the government is training them to allocate to
other industries.

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Save for the workers, is that good or bad?
>

It is bad for the workers and good for everyone else. In my opinion, the
workers deserve help from the rest of society.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Daniel Rocha]

Save for the workers, is that good or bad?

[Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/news/companies/peabody-coal-bankruptcy/index.html