 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As far as I can understand, the article contradicts itself when it comes to USA's Peak Coal. The introduction needs to be fixed somehow, to reflect what stands below. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a good rationale for maintaining the stub article Coal depletion. Is there any reason not to convert it to a redirect to this page? Cgingold (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that much of the data comes from one group, Energy_Watch_Group, a group associated with the Green Party in Germany. In fact, the link redirects to the founders Wikipedia page. I come from an area in Canada where there is a lot of coal in the ground but due to much cheaper labour in other parts of the world, all of the mines were shut down. It was not a lack of coal, far from it; it was purely a cost issue. The peak listed for Canada, 1997, coincides with the time when many domestic mines were shutting down due to costs and cheaper coal elsewhere. Perhaps this article (and other similar ones) should look into all of the reasons for peaks. A previous comment noted the US peak of 1914 was an inflection and not a peak; I would wager this is something similar. This does not mean peak coal or any other non-renewable peak is invalid, far from it. Logic dictates that there must be a peak since the creation of these resources occurs in geological time while the consumption occurs in human time. I am only arguing for more balance in the article without allowing special interest groups to run amok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaragan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this youtube videobyAlbert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deleted can't see what this is meant to prove? Why compare coal usage to human habitation in the country?
"To put this in perspective, 200 years is 0.5% of the time that Australia has been inhabited; if the human habitation of Australia were scaled to fit in a 24-hour day, the most optimistic predictions state that coal will run out in the equivalent of 10 minutes' time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.154.51 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coal depletion is an interesting subject that Jules Verne covers in his 1874 novel The Mysterious Island in which Cyrus Smith in Chapter 31 talks of the future. In it he predicts, using the then current consumption of coal per year (~1869-74), that coal would be exhausted in “At least two hundred fifty or three hundred years.” and suggests that the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen will eventually power the world... Not bad Mr. Verne for for 1874. (CaptianNemo (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Peak coal is defined in the first para; then the second para tells us there are two peaks; then later in the article (e.g. in 'energetic peaks') we hear that there have been multiple peaks. This is nonsense. The root cause of this intellectual confusion is that this theory/hypothesis is not presented as such, for which new data and the outturn of events will tend to validate it or disprove it. It's rather presented as something worthy of a theological belief system, into which new data can only be incorporated in such a way as to postpone the inevitable triumphant (because Hubbert will have been proven correct) day of Peak Coal.
Can we not present the article more in the form of: 1. Here's the theory/hypothesis/prediction of Peak Oil, based on Hubbert's work 2. Here's some initial predictions which have proven to be more or less correct 3. Here's some later data which shows that initial predictions have turned out wrong 4. Here's some predictions which we don't yet know are correct or not.
Or some variant of the above? At the moment we have a belief-based article which is (well done) being slowly accreted with actual outturns, but e.g. the third para is hopeless and the possibility of a decline in coal output occurring due to technological change, rather than depletion, does not seem to be adequately dealt with. Gravuritas (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peak coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That category has been removed from this article. But there is considerable emphasis in the srticle about the derivation of 'peak oil' from Hubbert's peak theory- which does not just describe a peak, but postulates other aspects of the production rate such as uniform growth and decline; the inevitability of supply exhaustion, etc. That seems to me to be an economic theory. So should the category of economic theory be reinstated for this article?
Alternatively, if 'peak coal' only means that it is a finite resource, which may or may not show one or multiple peaks in production according to comparative costs & attractiveness of other energy sources then it is no longer an economic theory, but much of the article is then inappropriate. 'Peak coal' then becomes more or less meaningless.
So, is 'peak coal' an economic theory, or is it meaningless?
Gravuritas (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
