Just a lot of high decibel screaming and shouting, it seems to bear out what James Kunstler says, most people believe we will either "organize" our way out of the problem; example, use "gasbuddy" to find the cheapest gas on our route or technology will save us, example "coal to liquids"

A few years ago there was a rather sensible Australian government move to create a CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicle infrastructure. Then they lost interest. One reason might have been an important bureaucrat testifying before parliament, and saying that the oil price can't go much over $40/barrel because "at that price coal to oil becomes profitable". Well that's a long way back in the rear view mirror. I presume it is profitable at $130/barrel. So why are the South Africans so grumpy. I presume that fear of a collapse in the price of oil has stopped others from doing it. Now that there is a wider expectation that the oil price will stay reasonably high, why won't CTL projects spring up everywhere that has coal? It is surprising how fast American business moves when it senses a profit. The rest of us try to catch up (or, in the case of bio-ethanol, try to avoid the mistake).

Which brings me to another coal question. There seems to be a lot of coal that is too deep for coal miners. Surely we can replace humans with robots in underground mining?

CNG is a sensible medium term option for Australia because its clean(ish) and we have a lot of gas.

why won't CTL projects spring up everywhere that has coal?

Oh I don't know, maybe its this climate change thing people keep talking about?

The first fully automated (read remotely operated or robotic) longwall was run in the United Kingdom in the 1960's. It was called ROLF . The deepest mine was apparently at 5,000 ft in the UK, though until I looked I hadn't thought they mined deeper than 3,000 ft, in Kent. The main reason that mines don't go deeper, at present, is that there is enough coal, closer to the surface, that is a whole lot cheaper to mine. It is only when the coal is exceptionally good, or the country is desperate for the resource (e.g. Ukraine which now has mines that I seem to remember go down to 4,500 ft) that mines start to go very deep.

Slowly remote and robotic control are coming to mining, but the changing geological conditions make it more difficult to program machines to work effectively, and in the varying geometry (seams can go from 5 ft thick to 18 inches in less that 150 ft) human miners are just that much more flexible.

I think a review of the ethanol financial debacle is in order. Great interest and government mandates and subsidies still can't make these companies profitable. Look at PEIX. The own the west coast for ethanol and can't earn a dime. Most plants on the board for 09 and out have been cancelled due huge losses in the industry.

American business moves fast when is senses a profit is correct.

Maybe they don't sense a profit.

To respond to your last question first: Yes, the coal industry (at least in the US) HAS gotten away from the old deep coal mining using human labor scheme, and they've done it rather destructively by using a technique known as 'mountain top removal'. It's fairly self-explanatory: they dynamite the tops off of mountains in Appalachia, pull the coal seams out using heavy equipment, and dump the remains in nearby rivers and streams. Real nice solution.

That aside, I think the coal industry is already poised to make a resurgance. Every other side ad in CCN's website lately tends to be from this Orwellian thinktank called "America's Power" (http://www.americaspower.org/). Their point for existence seems to be to try to remake the coal industry's image with a load of "greenwash". Look for a lot more of this as the coal monster awakens.