[Hoot Gibson]

I agree. Coal can not die without a replacement. However what i find equally important is that the replacement be made/harvested/manufactured/processed in the coal producing areas. Thats why i mentioned the biomass. There are plans to overhaul some existing coal technologies to become biomass plants.

As long as oil, gas, and coal are abundant and cheaper sources of energy than ethanol, regardless of whether the ethanol is produced from corn or some other organic material, it makes no sense for the government to subsidize ethanol production.

The purpose of Democrats restricting the production of domestic oil and coal is to drive the cost of these fuels upward to make fuels like ethanol and wind energy more competitive. The problem with the government creating such artificial shortages is that developing countries will continue to rely on the cheapest available energy sources.

Countries controlling large coal, gas, or oil reserves will enjoy a competitive advantage over industries in this country. Nations that have little or no energy sources of their own will see their standards of living plunge.

I agree that if this country must switch to ethanol, then it would be better for coal producing areas to locate the new plants in those areas but we have not reached that point yet. It is not too late to vote the idiots who are pursuing this self destructive strategy out of office, including Obama. It is too early to surrender on such an important issue.

Also, if and when biomass plants must be built, then they should be built as close as possible to the source of the biomass to minimize transportation costs. That means that most such plants would not be build in the Appalachians.

It is more efficient to ship a finished product over a long distance than to ship both the raw materials and finished products over long distances, which is why coal preparation plants are ideally located as close to the geographic center of the coal reserves that feed them.