Talk:Coal

Analysis

Can I suggest adding some notes about Proximate and Ultimate Analysis? Graham Proud 08:00, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

Need more work

Ciao Anthony,

good start, good material. But we absolutely need to get rid of those "here we need something"-like notes ASAP! I'm going to OK the points right now. Thanks for contributing to Earth Sciences! --Nereo Preto 11:20, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

P.S. - links in external link subpage. --Nereo Preto 02:40, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Coke?

Is it really called "coke"? Spelled as like "Diet Coke"? --Robert W King 14:10, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, really. Anthony Argyriou 15:48, 31 January 2008 (CST)

funny the stuff one picks up by the time you get older

I am not a mining expert, but I did live 3 years in a coal-mining town, with people who actually mine coal, and while there, I picked up the odd bit of information.Pat Palmer 13:38, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

Surely someone can revise those crude hand-drawn sketches??

The two rather crude handdrawn sketches of mining methods are badly in need of completely re-doing them by using some professional drawing software. Surely someone in CZ can do that!! Milton Beychok 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now replaced those sketches with a much better diagram form the Kentucky Geological Survey. Milton Beychok 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to improve this article

I have made a number of edits as well as adding photos and a new section (on proven coal reserves and coal production). I hope that they have improved this article and I plan to add other images and new sections in the next few weeks. Milton Beychok 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a section on coal classification and a section on coal analysis. I plan no further work on this article, but I do think that some expert in the field of mining needs to review and edit the section on "coal mining". Milton Beychok 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded and re-formatted the sarticle ... also some rewording.

I just expanded and reformatted the article. Also reworded the intro section and one of the section headers. I will be busy for the next 3 hours but, after that, I will respond (if needed) to any comments concerning my edits. I think that now the article is rounding into better shape.Milton Beychok 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CO2

Milton, I'm reading the article and learning some new (for me) stuff. As a chemistry editor I'm formally allowed to approve the article (and I will), but I'm completely new to its contents, so my approval will in reality not mean much. Anyway, I know that there is a good deal about CO₂ emission in the power station article, yet I miss one sentence in section 4 about the fact that coal burns almost completely to CO₂ and hence that coal is the fossil fuel with the largest "carbon footprint".--Paul Wormer 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good comment, Paul. I have added a brief discussion about CO₂ emissions and "carbon footprint". Brief because I don't want to repeat the information in Conventional coal-fired power plant. Milton Beychok 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

necessary sentence?

Is the following not out of place in an article about coal?

Severe snowstorms in late January 2008 seriously disrupted the rail and electrical systems, at a time when some 200 million city workers were attempting to visit their home villages during the Lunar New Year holiday.[15] (More references needed)

I would remove the sentence. --Paul Wormer 16:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)