Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
10 June 2014
Aku Press LLC

ALBUQUERQUE, NM – 10 June 2014 – Twenty Six States, most in the industrial belt, produce significant amounts of coal, the top sixteen being: Wyoming (338,900,000) tons per annum, West Virginia (158,257,000), Kentucky (130,688,000), Pennsylvania (74,619,000), Texas (49,498,000), Montana (38,352,000), Illinois (33,444,000), Virginia (32,834,000), North Dakota (31,270,000), Colorado (29,137,000), Indiana (27,965,000), New Mexico (27,323,000), Utah (26,656,000), Ohio (22,269,000), Alabama (19,324,000) and Arizona (13,111,000).

That is a lot of employment and national energy (not including gas and oil we'll get to later), used primarily to generate electricity. The blatant insanity of closing fossil fuel facilities would instantly and permanently exterminate well over 800,000 jobs and that share of the economy.

Media hype of knowing Marxist lies about 'climate change' up-graded from 'global warming'? Even total mental deviants see that scam from top to bottom, back to front and side to side. It isn't new, especially as applied to energy and manufacturing. Most have been around for decades like well-hidden snakes waiting for an opportune time to strike.

First my qualifications:

-- I was lucky enough to never have had to work in any mine. I was born and raised in King Coal country, northern West Virginia. All my family and most associates, except the women, were coal miners: grandfathers, uncles, cousins, friends and neighbors. My father, James Howard Cunningham, a life-long miner, was a section foreman with Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Company at Four States until he died of a heart attack at age 44, 8 March 1954.

-- On 12 May 1942, Christopher Coal Mine Number 3 at Osage blew and killed 56 men, three of them relatives of my father, brothers Arthur and Homer Cunningham and nephew Harold Murphy. Had he been at work that shift he would have been one of them, as he worked in the same area as his brothers. Frank Christopher who owned the mine, and CCC Number 9 at Four States until sold to R&P, was a dear and close family friend.

-- I knew and went to school at Four States, Worthington and Monongah with over half those 78 killed when Farmington Consol No. 9 exploded November 20, 1968. I understand the culture and realities of coal mining. Any errors I make I will instantly recognize and correct, if from competent authority.

Let's start with the chemical spill idiocy. Setting the stage: "Coal washing" was introduced back in the late 40s-early 50s that actually separated coal from inherent slate and sulphur by specific gravity in open containers of carbon tetrachloride, until the CTC became so dirty it didn't work anymore. Then it was dumped into the nearest runoff, regardless of who or what lived down stream. It was reputedly faster, more efficient and cheaper than hand-picking chunks of slate and sulphur from shaker-table conveyors. The 'accidental' 10,000 gallon 'leak' of coal washing foaming agent MCHM (4-methylcylohexanemethanol) into the Elk River at Charleston, 9 January 2014 was one more KAK-Marxist 'necessity' of deliberate design.

FACT: The 'coal washing' idea was a totally unnecessary idiocy then, and it's a totally unnecessary idiocy now.

And just how does one come to that conclusion?

Ask anybody who lives within a couple of miles of a BURNING slate dump! If all that 'waste' will burn in a slate dump, often several acres in size, it will burn in any furnace. Delusions of residue and 'clinkers' ruining furnaces are as bogus as all the other arguments to eliminate coal, (gas and oil) due to 'climate change' up-graded from 'global warming' and all the rest of that fossil-fuel-is-killing-the-planet congame. Grind the slate and sulphur with, and in, the same process as ordinary coal before being loaded to burn, and there won't be any more residue or clinkers than 'washed' coal produces. Fuel and labor savings alone will more than cover any 'additional' costs.

Oh, whine … but the fumes and smoke residue …

POPPYCOCK!

Now for the REAL exposure of knowing, abject KAK-Marxist idiocies.

A dit of common sense the size of an amoeba's eyebrow would see the advantage of eliminating shipping costs of moving mined coal to coal-fired electric plants: by building the generating plants right on top of the coal mines! The coal need only be mined and loaded and not shipped anywhere. Eliminating 'marketing costs' and mining only what is needed are all sound business advantages.

Now let's dispose of the non-existent 'pollution' problem.

Smoke? Fumes? Yep, they'll be there as will ash residue, but neither are infinitely indestructible nor infallibly useless!

Smoke first. A very simple near-horizontal water-spray mist-fall can and will clean ash residue, sulphur and all, from expelled air. Don't look now, but there's a PROFITABLE use for all that coal ash both from the smoke and boiler furnaces!

Fumes second. That same water-spray will reduce virtually all other gaseous contaminates in the process as it removes ash particles. Everything left in that ash is what makes it so valuable! With plenty of radiant heat available on-scene, evaporating – and thus cleaning – all that recyclable water isn't much of an issue. Water loss would be negligible as would 'warming' from expended steam. You could actually walk through it without discomfort or injury.

Will it take some water? Yes. A lot less than current generating plants as hot water is the push for turning steam-powered turbines. Water vapor will be recycled for the most part and won't be totally expended into the atmosphere. Water vapor that would be expended will be far cleaner than current rain-fall.

Storage for all that ash residue? Put it back inside the mines! Unless and until it's sold as fertilizer or de-icing (mainly highways), for which it is an excellent commodity in both instances. It's a very nature-friendly product. Check out the facts about acid soil in farming. Coal-ash is NOT a waste cum worthless 'contaminate' in any realm of sound business. A mine with excess sulphur wouldn't be considered for such generation.

Imagine how much better a similar electric generating plant would be if built on top of a natural gas or oil well! No shipping costs for fuel in either instance, and no ash of any consequence. Gas and oil fields are about as numerous as coal mines. Smaller generating plants, more of them on the grid, would provide for dependable power during storms or other outages.

Virtually nonexistent sub-surface water destruction or instigated earthquakes from fracking are only two side benefits. There would also be reduced demands on highways and railroads, with less pollution at the site than normal spillage in transport. Two of the best parts are: (1) there wouldn't be any great demand for those otherwise totally worthless, expensive and extremely dangerous 'coal washing' chemicals; and (2) nuclear plants could be better tested and designed than those on line today. Reduced radiation should ring a lot of favorable bells.

It takes time to tool and size-up compact and affordable nuclear plants like those powering our aircraft carriers, and construct them in pods where necessary rather than destroy-the-earth monster units like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. We can buy that time with common sense use of fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil.

However, we all know KAK-Marxist liars can't have something like any of the above because, (1) it removes them from palaces of power they really don't deserve anyway; (2) it would strengthen and increase the economy they're all hell-bent on destroying; (3) it's clean as in "no pollution" across the board; (4) it works perfectly because it's very simple; (5) it's cost-effective; and (6) they didn't think of it showing both their real stupidity and nefarious intentions! We can't have intelligence or common sense running loose among the populace, now can we?