Eight YEARS of CO2 Emissions Built Into Every Tesla Model S..

[westwall]

Let me make it even simpler for you, bill clinton locked up the largest anthracite coal supply in the US in a National Park. Enough to take care of our energy need for a couple of hundred years.

That's the right-wing-authoritarian-conspiracy-blog version of things, sure. However, I can't find any non-conspiracy source that agrees. Your job is to now back up your wild claim with something besides "because I say so!".

Don't bother deflecting by demonstrating President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and that a coal mine was planned there, as we all agree on that. What you need to demonstrate is that Kaiparowitz Plateau in Utah contains "7 billion tons of low-sulfur anthracite coal", as this Clinton Derangement Syndrome website claims.

Utah’s Clean Coal Rip-off and Clinton’s Gift to Communist China

You're supposedly a geologist. That task should be no problem for you, if you weren't just parroting propaganda.

No problem... It's been KNOWN for a long time. Here is one of many, you just have to know where to look.


"April 15, 1897
"The Holliday Coal Company which was recently incorporated in Salt Lake City, and whose claims are located in this county, some nine miles from Sunnyside, is working to make a shipment of four cars right away. The coal is said to be a good anthracite and bring $7.70 a ton on the Salt Lake market. Most of the incorporators are residents of Wellington and their enterprise deserves success. We understand the company intends making another road as soon as practicable to shorten the distance of hauling. As it is now the road is some fourteen miles long and this can be cut down some five miles. The seams of coal are 9-1/2 feet and four feet and are separated only by a thin strain of rock." (Eastern Utah Advocate, April 15, 1897, page 4)"


Sunnyside Coal Mines

 

[frigidweirdo]

There's no "free lunch" in Electric cars. Unless Musk runs his battery plants solely on solar/wind. Good luck with that strategy. And before you criticize this as just one study -- it's actually a meta-study combining the analysis of SEVERAL previous studies...



Stora utsläpp från elbilarnas batterier

Huge hopes tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive climate problem. But the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been placed, even before the batteries leave the factory.

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency investigated litiumjonbatteriers climate impact from a life cycle perspective. There are batteries designed for electric vehicles included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare has done a meta-study that is reviewed and compiled existing studies.

The report shows that the battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. The researchers did not study individual bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take an example: Two common electric cars on the market, the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S, the batteries about 30 kWh and 100 kWh.

Even when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. As a comparison, a trip for one person round trip from Stockholm to New York by air causes the release of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO calculation.
<SNIP>

His colleague, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size, based on a series of assumptions (see box below).

8.2 years to pay off the CO2 offset from producing that giant battery farm you're driving. And that doesn't count the emissions mix of what you're charging it from !!!! That's probably close to the REPLACEMENT time for a new battery stack..

So if you have to drive electric and you don't want to destroy the planet -- buy a small range car like a Leaf or a Volt....

Though sometimes you have to make the breakthrough in order to get somewhere. You pump out CO2, but then in 10 years time you're reducing CO2

 

[mamooth]

No problem... It's been KNOWN for a long time. Here is one of many, you just have to know where to look.

So, the sum total of your "evidence" is an 1897 letter repeating a rumor about a coal seam in a completely different part of the state.

On the up side, that's more solid evidence than you usually provide for your claims.

 

[westwall]

No problem... It's been KNOWN for a long time. Here is one of many, you just have to know where to look.

So, the sum total of your "evidence" is an 1897 letter repeating a rumor about a coal seam in a completely different part of the state.

On the up side, that's more solid evidence than you usually provide for your claims.

Wrong. That was just one that I knew where to find super fast. But the point is the anthracite was known about way back in 1897 which blows your little conspiracy theory right out of the water. It's not my fault you are a ignorant fool. That's on you.

 

[mamooth]

You'd think if there were 7 billion tons of anthracite to be found in that one county in Utah, there would some sort of formal geological survey describing it.

Let's see what the USGS says. (It's a big download, this map of US coal reserves)

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1205/pdf/Coal_Fields_Map.pdf

Well look at that. That southern Utah field has the color of "medium and high volatile bituminous". No anthracite anywhere nearby.

You might want to inform the USGS that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they'll also be impressed with your "Because I say so!" argument.

 

[westwall]

You'd think if there were 7 billion tons of anthracite to be found in that one county in Utah, there would some sort of formal geological survey describing it.

Let's see what the USGS says. (It's a big download, this map of US coal reserves)

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1205/pdf/Coal_Fields_Map.pdf

Well look at that. That southern Utah field has the color of "medium and high volatile bituminous". No anthracite anywhere nearby.

You might want to inform the USGS that they have it all wrong. I'm sure they'll also be impressed with your "Because I say so!" argument.

Check page 43 of the survey. Enjoy.


http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/052992.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625b/Reports/Chapters/Chapter_B.pdf

The USGS in this report only mention anthracite once, and that is where the formation the coal was in was intruded by igneous rock. A minor amount of anthracite even in that formation. Most of Utah's coal is bituminous to sub-bituminous. Check pages B-75 to B-99.

 

[mamooth]

Check page 43 of the survey. Enjoy.

http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/052992.pdf

----
The rest (about 10 percent) consists of bituminous coal (with small areas of anthracite), primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
---

So, a vague statement about "small areas of anthracite" somewhere in Utah. Not quite the "There are 7 billion tons of anthracite coal in the Kaiparowits Plateau Field" that the conservative conspiracy theories are claiming.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625b/Reports/Chapters/Chapter_B.pdf

The USGS in this report only mention anthracite once, and that is where the formation the coal was in was intruded by igneous rock. A minor amount of anthracite even in that formation. Most of Utah's coal is bituminous to sub-bituminous. Check pages B-75 to B-99.

Now there's a good source. The field in question here, the Kaiparowits Plateau Field, is specifically described on B-84.
---
The apparent rank of the John Henry coals changes systematically from subbituminous B in the northern part of the plateau to high-volatile bituminous B in the southern
part of the Plateau (Kohler and others, 1997).
---

So, no anthracite. Case closed.