Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_jd2hryo wrote

With all the environmental things going on, why not put it out?

9

t1_jd2uq8r wrote

There's something similar going on in the abandoned town of Centralia, Pennsylvania. In the 60s or something the coal mine underneath the town caught on fire, has been on fire since then and everyone moved out. I'm assuming it's impossible to put the fire out.

79

t1_jd3n603 wrote

There’s some long running fires underground along the Colorado Front Range too. They were cited as a possible source for a wild grassland fire that burnt down almost a thousand homes at the end of 2021.

24

t1_jd57kjn wrote

A lot of coal is burning too, in Montana. If there’s coal, there’s a chance it can catch fire.

3

t1_jd3ylaa wrote

All those fire are started by dumbasses who move here thinking theyre fucking les stroud and make a mess of the place

−31

t1_jd5a1xr wrote

They used an old pit mine as a dump. Then they set the dump on fire. Fire spread to the coal seam underground.

6

t1_jd3a31z wrote

Because putting out a fire that rages through a million tiny cracks in the ground requires that you find ALL of those tiny cracks. This is not something science has an answer to yet.

26

t1_jd3eb4u wrote

Ok I got it, fracking but with... Foam.
1 Government contract pls.

23

t1_jd3exlw wrote

Foam? Why not seawater? No shortage of salt water any time soon.

13

t1_jd3scze wrote

Because salting the earth is almost as bad as a low, slow fire

21

t1_jd4f7ak wrote

That’s why you get a contract to get rid of the salt water you used to get rid of the fire

11

t1_jd5tda2 wrote

It's Australia, when they're done they can just tow the saltwater out of the environment.

1

t1_jd3spka wrote

Oh yeah, i forgot about that. Well eityer way fracking wouldn't work because it covers too small an area.

2

t1_jd3g16m wrote

Also fracking is pretty short-ranged as i understand it, damn inverse square law. If it were that small we could just comb the whole thing with enough people, the problem is that its a lot bigger than that.

2

t1_jd3dgkf wrote

It could be excavated in advance? Travels at 1m/year. Begin 50 meters down the road..

−1

t1_jd3e3vv wrote

Its a vein of coal in the earth, its not gonna expand beyond the bounds of the coal, its just that short of excavating the ENTIRE thing theres no way to make it stop, and making a pit that big costs a lot of money. That much funding would frankly do more good elsewhere.

18

t1_jd3potx wrote

Coal is being dug in mines for profit all over. How deep is this burn? It has air. It scorches the earth..

−3

t1_jd3r40y wrote

I imagine it would also be incredibly dangerous to even attempt, you're exposing coal thats been burning off of a tiny stream of o2 for ages, to a ton of air all at once.

12

t1_jd40pv3 wrote

True. But then there is no coal. Removing the fuel would make it stop burning.

−1

t1_jd3yfer wrote

Coal being dug for profit depends on many things. Ease of access, both in the mining sense (how easy is it to dig a mine, and how safe is the soil around it to prevent subsidence) and the distance to where it is needed. In a remote area, transportation costs might soon exceed mining profits even if it's high grade coal.

2

t1_jd413av wrote

Tbt. I imagine someone would have done it if there was profit to be made. It may drive a sick kind of tourism? I donno. But stopped it can be. Probably not worth it.

1

t1_jd38olx wrote

i mean you’d probably have to redirect a river into it to stop it

24

t1_jd5cdy0 wrote

I don't think that would do it.

It's clearly got its own oxygen source down there and open spaces that aren't braced frequently collapse protecting the front edge of the fire from the burned sections and the unburned sections aren't that permeable to water.

5

t1_jd2qm8f wrote

It would cost way way way too much. Even then probably impossible. We don't control nature.

12

t1_jd2i55x wrote

Maybe, because it has nothing to do at all with anthropogenic climate change?

5

t1_jd2z6sj wrote

According to the Aborigines it is anthropocentric though...

5

t1_jd2xze3 wrote

I’m assuming the downvotes are from people scared of the word anthropogenic

4

t1_jd3ypv6 wrote

It still contributes to the same issues, even if it's not caused by humans.
The vast amounts of resources needed to even try to put this out probably far outweigh the benefits.
But i don't think it's accurate to say that just because it's not human made it can't haem us.

2

t1_jd426lh wrote

What I am saying is, that it is totally irrelevant to current climate change. It doesn't "contribute to the same issues", because natural sources just don't have the same, critical effect, even if you take all of them combined, as anthropogenic climate change.

0

t1_jd463u7 wrote

Dunno what to say to this. That's simply not true.
You can't say that human coal burning contributes to our climate change but coal burning that we didn't cause doesn't contribute.

3

t1_jd4otm9 wrote

What means is this; There are $X tons of CO2 released naturally. There are $Y tons of CO2 released due to human activity.

$X isn't such a big deal, taken apart from $Y, because nature recycles it. Add in $Y, which is more than nature can make use of, that's a big deal.

Does that makes sense? OP is breaking it down, you're taking a total approach. One can't say either view is wrong.

2