Pushing the Introvert

I've been introverted my entire life.

The way introverts experience the world is completely foreign to extroverts.  It's impossible to explain it.  It's stressful to not have extroverts grasp that.  It's also stressful to live in an extroverted society, which we do.

A lot of lawyers, although I doubt anywhere near 50%, are introverted.  That surprises people, and it may in particular surprise people that their own lawyer may be introverted.  Being introverted doesn't mean that you can't interact with people, even in a very public and effective fashion.  

Added to this is the phenomenon of "Type A" personalities, who are competitive and achieving, for lack of a better way to put it.  I have no idea if most Type A personalities are extroverts, but I'll bet they are.  It's always universally assumed that lawyers, particularly trial lawyers, are Type A personalities, and I'll bet most are, at least the trial lawyers. but not everyone is. I'm not.  I don't like competition at all and never intentionally get myself into most types of competition, at least public competition.¹   Knowing that I like history and know a bunch of stuff in general, people will try to draw me into competition or even force me into ones if I'm in a setting where I can't avoid it, which I absolutely despise.  "You're on my team!" I'll hear and we're off into a game of specified trivia or something, which I don't want to be in.²   I once had this occur with somebody betting on me following a bunch of "no, no, no" comments from me, all to no avail.  

More than one I've been talking with some other lawyer or professional who will say to me "we're both Type A personalities. . . ".

No, I'm not.

So why do I bring this all up?

I recently have had some legal matters which featured a crop of older lawyers.  Lawyers older than me.  Guys who really ought to be retired.  I heard at one of these things that "lawyers who retire are unhappy".  

These guys love the association of other lawyers.

Recently it occurs to me that I've never really liked that.  I don't pal around with big bunches of lawyers.  I have some lawyers who are my friends, but I don't call up other lawyers at random to go to lunch, or things like that.  Indeed recently the abuse that lawyers do to society and individuals has come into sharp focus to me, in part I guess, as I'm close enough to the end of my career that I don't have to pretend that every legal cause is somehow ennobling.  I think lawyers who have the attitude expressed above have it, as they love hanging around with other lawyers and, as odd as it may seem, they like the forced captivity of witnesses and deponents as they love the game aspect of the law, and just like being around with people they don't know, even if those people really don't want to be around them.  I've actually seen lawyers go on yapping at somebody in a deposition for the obvious reason that they're enjoying talking to the witness, who if examined closely is in agony.

Indeed, I bet they don't even realize that's the case. 

Okay, again, why do I bring this up?

Well, first of all, I'm supposed to go to an event this week. Well, today.  It's out of town.  But I have a lot of work to do, and I can't afford the time, and beyond that, I just don't want to go.

I just don't want to.

I don't want to sit around with the lawyers all day, and I don't want to go to the dinner.  I don't want to engage in small talk about the law, or tell war stories, or anything like that. 

I shouldn't have signed up for it, but there are CLE credits, and I need those.

So yesterday, I told my long suffering spouse that I wasn't going.

Then the hard sell came on.  

"You need to go".  "You need to keep the networks".

My wife and I, at this stage of my career, have substantially different ideas about the near term future.  I've come closer to death that I generally admit within the last couple of years, and this past week two people I know who were just a few years older than me suddenly died.  A woman I went to law school with I recently learned passed away four years ago, at age 58.  I really don't expect to be like those lawyers in their 70s, keeping on as (annoying) happy warriors until they die in their late 70s or early 80s.  Why would I?

They could probably answer that, but I can't even fathom it.

But my wife is an extrovert, and she can't conceive of a situation in which a person doesn't want to go to work every day, or even retire.  And she worries about finances, which of course is her absolute right.

So, the big push.

A lot of extroverts regard introverts not wanting to do things as something needing to be addressed.  It's sort of, in their minds, like kindergarteners who don't want to go to that first day of school.  They just need a little push.

And there's a lot of truth in that.  Sometimes introverts do need a push to go to something they'll like.

Sometimes, they need to be able to be left alone, or just with their families.

I generally work six days a week, sometimes seven. I'm in the introvert category that needs to have some downtime.  And, quite frankly, to be pushed to go to something by those who can't go themselves, due to other commitments, is agony.  My first question whenever I'm invited to something is to my wife, and that question is "are you going?"  More often than not, it's "no, but you need to".

I really don't.

And she doesn't grasp that, nine times out of ten, when I go and enjoy these things, it's because she went with me, which she very rarely does anymore.  It was her company I enjoyed, not the attendance at the event.

I tend to yield on these things, and we'll see about this one.  But, for those close to introverts, or married to them, knowing that we live in an extremely extroverted and competitive society, first do no harm.

"Don't make things worse for me" is sometimes my reply, which is not appreciated at all.  

In other words, taking somebody whose brain is wired for hard on full bore activity in public, and for whom there are no casual conversations whatsoever, and pushing them into having their brain work overtime, is not always a favor.

Footnotes

1.  I will participate in some sorts of competitions, but they're mostly ones that are really individual and I'm basically competing with myself.  In terms of team sports, I really only like baseball, which is a team sport that has such individual positions.  It's almost like a series of individual competitions. The man up to bat is really an individual.

I detest football.  I find soccer boring.  I do like rugby, however.

If I'm in an individual competition, I like to do well, but I'm not upset with myself if I don't.  I will note that highly competitive people, however, can make even individual competitions absolutely miserable by introducing their personal competitiveness into it.  Some competitive people make things into competitions that don't need to be.

As an example of the latter, two of my highly competitive colleagues are this way. On the rare occasions I've been bird hunting with them, "who has the best dog" becomes some sort of stupid aggravating competition and during football and basketball seasons endless arguments about adopted teams go on and on, in a public setting, on the presumed assumption that everyone likes to watch these verbal jousts.

For that matter, they both like to argue and will engage in verbal sparring on various topics just for sport, and again where everyone else can't avoid them.  Some time ago, I actually intervened to stop their arguments on religion as they were outright insulting to two people here who are members of minoritarian religions.

Oddly, I've found that a lot of former soldiers who really liked the military have the same mindset and don't follow team sports.  I think I know the reason why, but I'll deal with it in some other thread.

2.  I've actually had "we'll play trivia" thrown out as an educement to attend something, which nearly guarantees that I'll try to avoid it.  It's not that I mind trivia topics, or trivial pursuit as a game, but I don't want to compete with people out of a close circle who don't care if I win or lose.  I really hate being made the presumed champion who will carry a team to victory as its stress I really don't need.

Monday, May 26, 1975. Memorial Day.

Gerald Ford issued the following proclamation:

Proclamation 4375—Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, May 26, 1975

May 22, 1975

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

At the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln proclaimed at a battlefield cemetery "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." Shortly after that tragic war, a day was set aside each year to honor those who gave their lives.

Over 100 years have passed since that simple but moving ceremony at Gettysburg. There have been many Memorial Days, and many more Americans have died in defense of what we believe in. As Thomas Paine said, "Those who would reap the blessings of freedom must . . . undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Today, because of the sacrifice and courage of American men and women, we are a free Nation at peace.

Let us dedicate ourselves today, and every day, to honoring those valiant Americans who died in service to their country. Let us gain strength from their sacrifice and devote ourselves to the peaceful pursuits which freedom allows and progress demands.

With faith in ourselves, future Memorial Days will find us still united in our purpose. Let us join together in working toward the greatest memorial we can construct for those who lay down their lives for us-a peace so durable that there will be no need for further sacrifices.

In recognition of those Americans to whom we pay tribute today, the Congress, by joint resolution of May 11, 1950 (64 Stat. 158), has requested that the President issue a Proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and to designate a period during that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer.

Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 1975, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11 o'clock in the morning of that day as a time to unite in prayer.

I urge all of America's news media to assist in this observance.

I direct that the flag of the United States be flown at half-staff until noon on Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels of the Federal Government throughout the United States and all areas under its jurisdiction and control.

I also call upon the Governors of the fifty States, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and appropriate officials of all local units of government to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff on all public buildings during the customary forenoon period; and I request the people of the United States to display the flag at half-staff from their homes for the same period.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

It was my father's 46th birthday.

As it was a day he didn't have to work, my guess is that we went fishing on the North Platte. 

Last edition:

Sunday, May 25, 1975. A Sunday in May.

Labels: 1970s, 1975, Automobile racing, Growing up in the 1970s

Saturday, May 26, 1945. The Homecoming.

The Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) was transferred from Rheims to Frankfurt-am-Main.

The Saturday Evening Post featured Norman Rockwell's "GI Homecoming" illustration that was soon used for a war bond poster.  It features in one of Sarah Sundin's articles on her blog site, and this is directly linked into that:

Extremely poignant, there's a lot going on in the illustration, from the "girl next door" peeking around the corner, to the fact that the returning soldier is returning to an extremely urban, and not very attractive apartment building, something very common of urban life at the time.

The Berlin Philharmonic gave its first performance since the end of the war in Europe.

" Soldiers of the 77th Inf. Div. walk past mud-clogged tanks parked by the side of the road on Okinawa. 26 May, 1945. 77th Infantry Division."

Allied forces occupied Bassein, Burma.

Aerial photograph of Tokyo burning after B-29 fire bombing mission, May 26, 1945.

It was my father's 16th birthday.

Last edition:

Friday, May 25, 1945. The Clock.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, 1945 at the movies, Army, Artillery, Battle of Odžak, Croatia, Kamikaze, Marriage, Movies, Operation Downfall, Operation Olympic, Operation Ten-Go, U.S. Navy, World War Two, Yugoslavia

Musings Over a Barrel: Five O'Clock Friday: Sensible Budgeting

Musings Over a Barrel: Five O'Clock Friday: Sensible Budgeting: I'll admit it. This is exactly my thought process when shopping. However, cigars and bourbon bring me way more joy than any utilitarian ...

An interesting observation, and a long boring comment by me. 

Blog Mirror: 1925 Description of Electric Stoves

Really interesting.  I hadn't given much thought to when electric stoves really entered the scene, but I would not have guessed it was this early.

The conversation that follows is really interesting too, especially the item noting that electricity wasn't common for rural homes until the 1930s when rural electrification came in as a Depression Era project.

1925 Description of Electric Stoves

Thursday, April 23, 1925.. My mother.

My mother was born in St. Lambert, Quebec.

Last edition:

Wednesday, April 22, 1925. Thought police.

Labels: 1920s, 1925, 2020s, 2025, Disaster, Great Salt Lake, Japan, law, Republican Party, Utah

Where people met.

Strange. . . rodeos aren't mentioned.  Odd.

That shocking omission aside, there's some really interesting information here.

 

A 91 Year Old Prime Minister Shares His Best Life Lessons

"Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241" vs Reality.

This isn't going to do anything, but it throws a bone to Western populist voters who seriously believe that there's some sort of conspiracy against coal.

It's also captioned in Trump-Moron-O-Speech, but that's another matter.

Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241

Executive Orders

April 8, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. In order to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security, lower the cost of living, and provide for increases in electrical demand from emerging technologies, we must increase domestic energy production, including coal. Coal is abundant and cost effective, and can be used in any weather condition. Moreover, the industry has historically employed hundreds of thousands of Americans. America’s coal resources are vast, with a current estimated value in the trillions of dollars, and are more than capable of substantially contributing to American energy independence with excess to export to support allies and our economic competitiveness. Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. We must encourage and support our Nation’s coal industry to increase our energy supply, lower electricity costs, stabilize our grid, create high-paying jobs, support burgeoning industries, and assist our allies.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that coal is essential to our national and economic security. It is a national priority to support the domestic coal industry by removing Federal regulatory barriers that undermine coal production, encouraging the utilization of coal to meet growing domestic energy demands, increasing American coal exports, and ensuring that Federal policy does not discriminate against coal production or coal-fired electricity generation.

Sec. 3. Strengthening Our National Energy Security. The Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC) shall designate coal as a “mineral” as defined in section 2 of Executive Order 14241 of March 20, 2025 (Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production), thereby entitling coal to all the benefits of a “mineral” under that order. Further, Executive Order 14241 is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “4332(d)(1)(B)” in section 6(d) of that order and replacing it with a reference to “4532(d)(1)(B)”.

Sec. 4. Assessing Coal Resources and Accessibility on Federal Lands. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Energy shall submit a consolidated report to the President through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy that identifies coal resources and reserves on Federal lands, assesses impediments to mining such coal resources, and proposes policies to address such impediments and ultimately enable the mining of such coal resources by either private or public actors.

(b) The Secretary of Energy shall include in the report described in subsection (a) of this section an analysis of the impact that the availability of the coal resources identified could have on electricity costs and grid reliability.

Sec. 5. Lifting Barriers to Coal Mining on Federal Lands. (a) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall prioritize coal leasing and related activities, consistent with applicable law, as the primary land use for the public lands with coal resources identified in the report described in section 4(a) of this order and expedite coal leasing in these areas, including by utilizing such emergency authorities as are available to them and identifying opportunities to provide for expedited environmental reviews, consistent with applicable law.

(b) The Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the authorities in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 351-359), and the Multiple Mineral Development Act of 1954 (30 U.S.C. 521-531 et seq.), shall acknowledge the end of the Jewell Moratorium by ordering the publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating the “Environmental Impact Statement Analyzing the Potential Environmental Effects from Maintaining Secretary Jewell’s Coal Leasing Moratorium”, and process royalty rate reduction applications from Federal coal lessees in as expeditious a manner as permitted by applicable law.

Sec. 6. Supporting American Coal as an Energy Source. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall identify any guidance, regulations, programs, and policies within their respective executive department or agency that seek to transition the Nation away from coal production and electricity generation.

(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the heads of all relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall consider revising or rescinding Federal actions identified in subsection (a) of this section consistent with applicable law.

(c) Agencies that are empowered to make loans, loan guarantees, grants, equity investments, or to conclude offtake agreements, both domestically and abroad, shall, to the extent permitted by law, take steps to rescind any policies or regulations seeking to or that actually discourage investment in coal production and coal-fired electricity generation, such as the 2021 U.S. Treasury Fossil Fuel Energy Guidance for Multilateral Development Banks rescinded by the Department of the Treasury and similar policies or regulations.

(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Chief Executive Officer of the International Development Finance Corporation, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the heads of all other agencies that have discretionary programs that provide, facilitate, or advocate for financing of energy projects shall review their charters, regulations, guidance, policies, international agreements, analytical models and internal bureaucratic processes to ensure that such materials do not discourage the agency from financing coal mining projects and electricity generation projects. Consistent with law, and subject to the applicable agency head’s discretion, where appropriate, any identified preferences against coal use shall immediately be eliminated except as explicitly provided for in statute.

Sec. 7. Supporting American Coal Exports. The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for National Security, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall take all necessary and appropriate actions to promote and identify export opportunities for coal and coal technologies and facilitate international offtake agreements for United States coal.

Sec. 8. Expanding Use of Categorical Exclusions for Coal Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall identify to the Council on Environmental Quality any existing and potential categorical exclusions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, increased reliance on and adoption of which by other agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336c could further the production and export of coal.

Sec. 9. Steel Dominance. (a) The Secretary of Energy, pursuant to the authority under the Energy Act of 2020 (the “Act”), shall determine whether coal used in the production of steel meets the definition of a “critical material” under the Act and, if so, shall take steps to place it on the Department of Energy Critical Materials List.

(b) The Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the authority under the Act, shall determine whether metallurgical coal used in the production of steel meets the criteria to be designated as a “critical mineral” under the Act and, if so, shall take steps to place coal on the Department of the Interior Critical Minerals List.

Sec. 10. Powering Artificial Intelligence Data Centers. (a) For the purposes of this order, “artificial intelligence” or “AI” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Energy shall identify regions where coal-powered infrastructure is available and suitable for supporting AI data centers; assess the market, legal, and technological potential for expanding coal-based infrastructure to power data centers to meet the electricity needs of AI and high-performance computing operations; and submit a consolidated summary report with their findings and proposals to the Chair of the NEDC, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto.

Sec. 11. Acceleration of Coal Technology. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall take all necessary actions, consistent with applicable law, to accelerate the development, deployment, and commercialization of coal technologies including, but not limited to, utilizing all available funding mechanisms to support the expansion of coal technology, including technologies that utilize coal and coal byproducts such as building materials, battery materials, carbon fiber, synthetic graphite, and printing materials, as well as updating coal feedstock for power generation and steelmaking.

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a detailed action plan to the President through the Chair of the NEDC outlining the funding mechanisms, programs, and policy actions taken to accelerate coal technology deployment.

Sec. 12. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

I don't usually repost an entire thread, but it's warranted here.  What's really going on with coal:

Coal: Understanding the time line of an industry

  
Me, third from right, when I thought I had a career in geology, and probably in coal.

There is a lot of speculation about a revival in the future of coal around here.  I'm skeptical.  This doesn't mean that I come from the outside where coal is simply a freakish oddity.  No, I'm pretty familiar with coal. . . personally.  At one time, coal, I thought, would fuel my career. When other students in the UW geology department of the early 1980s were planning on becoming petroleum geologist, I focused on coal, which wasn't suffering. . . at first, the way oil then was.  Of course, it came to, and I went from the geology department into under employment so my plan failed.

The irony of that is that my choice on coal as a focus was intentional.  I could see the handwriting on the wall in regards to employment in the oil industry.  Others seemingly couldn't, or having entered onto that set of railroad tracks they just couldn't get off.  Coal, on the other hand, was doing fine in the early 1980s. . . at first.  There were coal mines operating at that time which aren't now.  Indeed, there was an underground coal mine in Hanna, a continuation of a situation that had existed well into the early 20th Century.

Well, that didn't work out the way I'd panned and by 1985, when I approached graduation from the University of Wyoming, after five years of effort (five was typical for geologist, that was five full semesters) I graduated into being an . . . .artilleryman.

Yup.  Artillery. The rescuer of my economic fortunes.

I'd joined the National Guard right out of high school and was still in it in 1985 when I graduated.  The Guard basically employed me on a semi full time basis for a year while I tired to find a job.  I couldn't, of course, so I ended up going back to school to obtain a JD.  Indeed, relating back to the Guard, I've felt guilty ever since as I let my enlistment expire in 1986 just before I went back to law school as I believed all the propaganda I'd heard about how hard law school is.  Hah!  It's nothing compared to obtaining a bachelors in geology. 

  

My main employer, right after receiving my bachelor's degree.

Anyhow, in that period of time between my general geology studies at Casper College (during which I really picked up a love of geomorphogy) and my graduation, the first time, at the University of Wyoming by which time I'd picked up a focus on coal, I learned a lot about coal.  At the same time I nearly obtained enough credits for a BA in history, which perhaps reflects a natural interest that reflects itself back here.

 So, perhaps in some ways, I'm uniquely suited to ponder the long decline of coal.   Or at least I have.

And indeed the path of coal, and its long slow decline, is highly relevant to where we find ourselves now.  Lots of people in the coal states believe that the election of Donald Trump is going to revive the fortunes of coal.  Here in Wyoming quite a few people are so acclimated to coal paying the bills that they can't imagine anything else.  Indeed, just this past weekend I was at a public event, wearing my shabby (truly) Carhartt coat and my Stormy Kromer cap, probably looking like a guy who had shoveled a lot of coal (and indeed I have shoveled a little) and was accosted by a person sitting under a banner proclaiming something about a "return" to liberty and the Constitution who started off on a speech about would I like to sign a petition in opposition to any kind of new taxes.  No, I won't sign that as I just don't see coal being able to pay the Wyoming freight in the future anymore.  Maybe some other mineral or minerals can, but coal isn't going to be able to the way it once did (and besides, I'd be unlikely to sign anyway as I tend to find that people are always opposed to new taxes but not bothered by demanding that the things taxes pay for are really good).

I think the path of coal, being familiar with it, might be best illustrated by a few rough dates and illustrations.  Its something that should be considered.

So let's start around 1900.  That was a world fueled by coal (and by wood).  Sure, kerosene was around, and it had replaced whale oil to a large extent.  I have around here a draft post, now months and months old, building on a George F. Will column that noted:

In many ways, the world of 1870 was more medieval than modern. Three necessities — food, clothing, shelter — absorbed almost all consumer spending. No household was wired for electricity. Flickering light came from candles and whale oil, manufacturing power from steam engines, water wheels and horses. Urban horses, alive and dead, complicated urban sanitation. Window screens were rare, so insects commuted to and fro between animal and human waste outdoors and the dinner table. A typical North Carolina housewife in the 1880s carried water into her home eight to 10 times daily, walking 148 miles a year to tote 36 tons of it. Few children were in school after age 12.

As I will note, I don't dispute the details that Will recites here, but I do doubt the "more medieval than modern assertion in a major way.  Indeed, some of these things argue, I think, the other way around and I think that misstates the nature of the Medieval world.

But noting what Will states about lights, we note what he said, and further note that it was accurate.

• "No household was wired for electricity"

This is quite true.

• "Flickering light came from candles and whale oil,"

Whale oil chandelier, photo from the Library of Congress.  Up until the Will entry, I'd never even considered there being such a thing as a whale oil chandelier.

And so, in many places it did.  But coal fueled a lot of other things.

But let's consider coal in 1900.

It fueled the ships.

 USS Ohio, approximately 1898, as the USS Maine, which sank in a coal explosion in 1898, is in the background.

It fueled the trains, the only significant interstate transportation that existed.

New Your central yard, about 1907.

It heated the homes, where wood did not.

And it fueled industry, particularly the steel industry.

Blat furnace, about 1905.

And then things began to change.

It really started with navies in some ways, although some might argue that it started with hydroelectric.  We'll start with navies.

Navies had been powered by sail up until the mid 19th Century but already by the time of the American Civil War that was changing.  The U.S. Navy may have had its grandest ships under sail during that war, but coal fired wheels were being introduced even then.   And the scary smoke belching squat "monitors"  that signaled the end of the age of sail were coal (and perhaps wood) burning beasts.  Slow, hardly seaworthy, but iron clad.  It was pretty clear by 1865 that the age of militarized wind was ending.

And indeed the Naval reformation that occurred after the American Civil War is incredibly stunning.  Everything about navies soon changed.  By the 1890s every major navy in the world was building ships that look odd to our eyes, but which still look familiar .  Big guns on big ships powered by coal replaced sailing vessels, and the general purpose yeoman sailor was replaced by the specialist.  At about this time, in fact, the U.S. Navy started to switching from a navy drawing its recruits mostly from port towns, and which was in fact an integrated navy, to one which was segregated which drew its recruits from the interior of the country.  A wood and sail navy required men who had grown up near, or even on ships, and who knew the ins and outs of sail. That was a multi ethnic, polyglot group of men who in some way resembled the men in every port town around the world more than they did the men in the interior of their own countries.  It's  no accident that the first Congressional Medal of Honor to go to a foreign born serviceman went to a sailor, in action during the American Civil War fighting a naval battle in. . . . .Japan.

The naval battle in Shimonoseki Straits where an English sailor serving on board the USS Wyoming won a Congressional Medal of Honor.  Note that these ships already featured coal fire steam, in addition to sail.

While there was a sail and steam age, i.e., an age that combined both, for navies it wouldn't last long. For commercial shipping it lasted longer, and indeed the age of sail itself lingered on until after World War Two, amazingly enough, in some usages.  But for big ships, coal fired boilers were the norm before the turn of the century.  Sail lingered, but only lingered.

And so we entered the coal fired world. The degree to which coal fired everything, almost, is stunning.  If we take the world of 1900 heavy long distance transportation of all types was coal fired.  Trains and ships, that is.  Local transportation was seeing the beginnings of the Petroleum Age, but only the beginnings.  Locally, it was very much a horse oriented world, and indeed the railroads themselves caused a massive boom in heavy hauler horses around the turn of the prior century which gave us the really big draft horses, rather than farms as we so often imagine.  Something had to hault hat weight from the railhead to the warehouse.

And heat was going the way of coal. Coal fired, well fires, heated homes all around the country everywhere.  Boilers for apartment buildings, furnaces in homes.  Wood remained, but it was coal that was the oncoming fuel.

A World War One vintage poster of the United States Fuel Administration.  This period poster nicely illustrates how coal fit in.  Homeowners were being urged to buy coal early in the year.  That coal wasn't delivered, in this poster, by a truck, but rather by a dump wagon drawn by heavy draft horses.  Given the light dress of the laborer and the depiction of foliage the poster must have been released during the summer.

It is, in short, impossible to overestimate the importance of coal around 1900.  It was called King Coal for a reason.

But things were beginning to slowly change.

For one thing, petroleum was creeping in.  Not in a massive way, but in a way that was clearly predictable.  George Will spoke of whale oil lamps, but by the second half of the 20th Century kerosene lanterns were very common and their advantages very obvious.  Following in their wake came gas lanterns and by necessity, piping for natural gas.  It wasn't long after that in which the first gas stoves were introduced. Already by the early 20th Century, therefore, there was gas lighting and gas stoves.  

And gasoline was already making its appearance in the internal combustion engine by 1900.

Very early internal combustion engine.

We've dealt with automobiles elsewhere, but we've become so acclimated to them that we rarely think of their history.  Automobiles were a 19th Century invention, albeit a very late 19th Century invention, not a 20th Century one.  That doesn't mean that they replaced the horse right away, that would hardly be true, but they do go back aways.  And they were not, and we should not pretend, that they were any sort of a threat to coal at first.  Not at all.  Cars, trucks and motorcycles were competition for the horse, not the train and certainly not the ship or even the barge.

Truck waiting in line with big long line of coal wagons, some time prior to World War One.

Which takes us back to ships.

And, more specifically, the Royal Navy.

For decades, indeed centuries, the world's biggest and best navy was the Royal Navy.  This does not mean, however, that there was ever a day in which some other navy wasn't contending with the Royal Navy for that position.  And given that, the British basically engaged in a naval arms race that lasted well over a century.  And that mean that it needed to always be on the alert for a technological advantage.

And coal had given one.  Steam meant that large steel ships were able to be constructed, fired by coal fueled boilers.  They had two significant disadvantages however.

Smoke and spontaneous ignition.

Let's talk about smoke first, the disadvantage that was always there.

Their smoke was visible all the way over the edge of the horizon.

This is something that people who are more familiar with ships of the World War Two era don't instantly recall about earlier steel ships, but coal fires smoke and hence coal fired boilers likewise smoke, or rather the coal fires smoke

 The Great White Fleet, and great clouds of black smoke, December 16, 1907.

Prior to the advent of air reconnaissance and radar the spotting of enemy fleets, or for that matter friendly forces, was done by the naked eye.  And it was a matter of absolutely vital concern.  In the vastness of the ocean ships at sea had always scoured the horizon for signs of enemy ships, and even clues that seem slight to landlubbers were picked up by trained sailors.  Sailors looked, in prior eras, for sails and masts on the horizon, with the assistance of spyglasses.  By the time of dreadnoughts, however, they were looking for the faintest hints of smoke, and coal fired boilers provided plenty of it.  Teams of sailors searched the horizon with massive binoculars looking for that wisp of smoke, which was often more than a wisp.

The next danger was rarer, but not so rare as to not be a serious problem.  Spontaneous combustion.

Coal has a well known propensity to self heat and to make it worse, the better the coal grade the bigger the problem.  Exposed to air and moisture coal begins to engage in an exothermic reaction and can relatively easily self heat to the point where it ignites.  Moreover, as it self heats and heads towards ignition it drives off highly flammable hydrocarbon gases. Indeed, heating coal intentionally in a controlled environment is a means of producing those gases and has sometimes been thought of as a method of producing them, although its never proven to be an efficient means of doing so.

Coal is so prone to spontaneous combustion that coal self ignition is a natural phenomenon.  It simply happens where coal gets exposed to sufficient oxygen and moisture. Anyone who has ever spent any time in an open pit coal mine has seen coal simply burning on its own, as I have.

There are ways to combat this, of course, but the problem is uniquely acute for ships.  Ships must store coal in large bunkers and must taken on a lot of coal at certain points.  Ships are wet by their very nature. So any coal burning ship has, at some point, a lot of coal with just enough oxygen and moisture to create a problem.

This proved to be a real problem for ships and of course there were extreme catastrophic occurrences, the most famous of which is the explosion of the USS Maine.  The Maine is an extreme example of what could occur, but any coal burning ship could experience what the Maine did.  Basically, in the case of the USS Maine, the coal self ignited and the coal bunkers had sufficient liberated gas to create a massive explosion.  Not quite as dangerous, but still a huge problem, a simple self ignition of the coal without an explosion was a disaster, quite obviously, of the first rate requiring sailors to put the coal fire out under extreme danger.

Coal's detriments on ships would have had to be accepted, and indeed they were, but for the existence of alternatives.  Indeed, coal survived as a naval fuel for an appreciably longer time than a person might actually suppose, so impressive were its advantages in general.  Measures were taken in ship design to try to combat the dangers, such as having the coal bunkers placed near outside ship's hulls such that the coolness of the water would translate to them, and placing sailors bunks along the bunker's walls so that the sailors could tell if heat was building, but the dangers were real and known. Also known was that there was an alternative, oil.

By the turn of the century naval designers were aware that oil could be used to heat boilers just as coal could, and they began to study it in earnest.  Indeed, not only could it be used, but it had numerous advantages.

Unlike coal, petroleum oil for ships fuel did not result in much smoke.  It resulted in some, but not anything like that which coal put out.  The smoke from a single ship was much less visible and suffice it to say the smoke from a fleet of ships was greatly reduced.  Again, there was smoke, but not smoke like that put out by coal fired boilers.  Indeed, it was so much reduced that to a large degree detection of ships over the horizon by the naked eye was approaching becoming a think of the past.

And petroleum does not spontaneously self ignite.  A big vat of petroleum can sit around forever and never touch itself off.  This does not mean, of course, that its free from danger.  It isn't.  But some of the dangers it poses were already posed by coal, but in lesser degrees.  Petroleum burns more freely than coal by quite some measure and once it ignites putting it out is extremely difficult.  Sparks, other fires, etc., all pose increased dangers for petroleum over bunkered coal, but they existed to some degree for bunkered coal already.

And petroleum is more efficient and easier to use for ships.  Coal was basically stoked by hand, a dirty laborious job.  But petroleum wasn't.  Petroleum burning boilers were fueled by what amounts to a plumbing system involving a greater level of technical know how but less physical labor.  And oil had double the thermal content of coal making it a far more efficient fuel which required less refueling.  And on refueling, ships fueled with oil can be refueled at sea.  Ships fueled with coal cannot be.  Indeed, the maintenance of coaling stations in the remote parts of the globe was a critical factor in naval planning prior to the introduction of oil.

Which isn't to say that there weren't some unique problems associated with petroleum for ship.

For one thing, the fact that it spreads out when leaked and can more easily ignite meant that petroleum added a unique and added horror for a stricken ship.  Coal fired ships that were simply damaged and sinking were unlikely to cause a horrific sea top fire.  Petroleum ships are very likely to do that.  And the risk of a munitions caused explosion is increased with petroleum fueled ships.  A torpedo into a coal bunker might blow a coal fired ship to bits with an explosion or might just sink it.  With a petroleum fueled ship the risk of an explosion in such a situation is increased as is the risk that oil on the water will catch on fire or otherwise kill survivors.

A huge factor, however, was supply.

By odd coincidence all of the major naval powers, save for Japan, had more than adequate domestic supplies of coal.  Some had very good supplies of coal, such as the United States, United Kingdom and Imperial Germany, within their own borders.  Japan nearly did in that it obtained it from territories it controlled on the Asian mainland, although that did make its supply more tenuous. At any rate all of the big naval powers of the pre World War One world had coal supplies that htey controlled.  That's a big war fighting consideration.  Of the naval powers of that era, in contrast, only the United States and Imperial Russia had proven petroleum sources they controlled, and Imperial Russia had proven it self to be a second rate naval power during the Russo Japanese War.

Switching from coal to oil did not occur in the Royal Navy, or any navy, all at once. The decision was made somewhat haltingly and it was an expensive proposition to convert an entire navy to oil.  Britain started to convert prior to World War One but it didn't complete the process until after the war.  Still, its decision to start constructing capitol ships as oil burners in 1912 was a huge step for a nation that had the world's largest navy but which had no domestic oil production at all.  The United States followed suit almost immediately, with its first large ship to be converted to oil, the USS Cheyenne, undergoing that process in 1913.

 The USS Cheyenne in 1916 while it was a submarine tender.  The Cheyenne was the first oil burning ship in the U.S. Navy, following the lead that the British had started.

The USS Cheyenne was illustrative of something else that was going on, however, that being the increased presence of heavy internal combustion engines for various uses.  The USS Cheyenne had been built as a monitor, a type of proto battleship (and had been named the USS Wyoming originally) but after its conversion to oil it would become a submarine tender in a few short years.  Submarines of the era were light vessels and, like a lot of light naval fighting ships ,they were diesels.  Marine diesel engines were replacing boilers completely in lighter vessels and of course diesel fuel is a type of oil.

Diesels in that application show that industrial diesel engines had arrived.

By World War Two every navy in the world was an oil burning, not a coal burning, navy.  And it wasn't just navies.  Merchant ships had followed in the navies' wakes.  They were now oil burning too for the most part.  Coal at sea had died.

 Giant marine diesel engine circa 1920.

The demise of coal at sea did not equate, of course, with the universal demise of coal, and this is very important to keep in mind.  Entering into the period of history we've been discussing, roughly 1900 to 1920, coal may have lost its crown at sea, but it remained hugely important, arguably increasingly important, elsewhere.  It continued to be the fuel of heavy transportation, IE., for trains, it continued to heat homes and it fired an ever growing  number of power plants.  Indeed that last application can't be overstated as in this same period the Western world was electrifying.  So whatever position it may have lost on the waves it was likely more than making it up on land.

Still, the trend line had been set.

And it would next show itself with transportation.

At least according to one source written in 1912 coal fueled 9/10s of all locomotive engines at that time.  The other 1/10th would have been fired by wood or, yes,  oil.

This photograph will appear again in a series of photographs on the centennial of their having been first taken, in January 1917, but these teenagers are stealing coal from a rail yard.  They are probably taking it home for heating fuel or are selling it to Bostonian's who probably knew darned well these kids had taken it illegally from the yards.  For that matter, the railroad likely knew they were taking it too.  Even today, decades after the end of the use of coal for locomotives the paths of old railways can be found by the coal ash and coal that the trains dropped as they passed by.  I've walked the path of the old UP here and there down by Laramie doing that.

Wood, I should  note, may seem strange for a locomotive engine of that era, but it really shouldn't.  The goal of any fuel used in a locomotive engine is to produce steam and burning wood will produce steam.  Wood isn't an efficient fuel for that but it was a common one very early on.  Most locomotives were switched to coal after the Civil War, assuming that they were not burning it already, but where wood was locally plentiful and the engine had a local use, as for a small engine associated with a timbering operation, wood was kept in use.  

Indeed, as a total aside, during World War One some small German engines were made that burned trash.  Coal is a military fuel, Germany's (and Poland's) coal is very good, but as a military fuel conservation was the rule of the day.

At any rate, in 1912 less than 1/10th of all steam engines were burning oil, but what is telling there is that some were.  So here too a trend line had started.

In following years more and more steam engines became oil burning engines.  The reasons may not be entirely clear and are somewhat subtle, but some of them have been touched upon already above.  Oil is a more efficient fuel. Not so much so, however, that all locomotives were switched to it. The famous Union Pacific Big Boys, for example, were coal burning to the end.

Union Pacific Big Boy. These were coal burning their entire career.

What did the coal burning locomotive in, in the end, or more properly the steam engine in, was the diesel.

Diesel engine, 1985, outside of Laramie Wyoming.

Diesels Electric trains proved to be a better and more efficient option for train engines in the end. Contrary to what some may think these locomotives do not work like a diesel truck in that the engine does not power the drive wheels. Rather the diesels are big generators and the trains are essentially electric.   By the same token, in the proper settings, trains run from overhead electric lines.  Either way, this type of engine did in the steam engine.

Now then, looking at it, we see that coal went from the main fuel for ships and trains to a remnant fuel for both in a fifty year period. Hardly overnight, but clearly observable.  A person living in the era, if they cared to notice the trend, would have noticed.  Certainly, for example, if you lived in Rawlins Wyoming and looked out towards the Union Pacific Railroad yard over the course of an average life, if you'd lived in this period, you would have seen it gone from a busy smoky and sooty yard to one which had only the blue haze of diesel fuel above it.  And given that Rawlins is just seven miles from Sinclair, where a refinery is located, but also is surrounded by coal deposits and actually had its origin as a coaling location for the Union Pacific, the change would have been pretty obvious.  If you worked in the big underground mines in Hanna you might actually be slightly worried.

Which isn't to say that coal stopped being used.  Not hardly.  It was still heating homes all over, including in Wyoming, and it still was the fuel for power plants.

Let's turn to domestic coal use, as we haven't really touched on that much.

 

Lennox "Torrid Zone" coal furnace

Now, as we've seen above, coal was a basic heating fuel early in the 20th Century, having replaced wood in that role to a large extent.  During World War One Americans were urged to stock up on heating coal early, which meant filling their coal rooms full during the summer rather than waiting until winter.  Coal soot was such a prominent part of big city life that it came to be an accepted part, even contributing to the legendary concept that London was foggy.  It wasn't so much foggy as it was sooty.  This use of coal continued on for a very long time, and indeed here in Wyoming, which switched to gas early, people still ordered coal for heating fuel at least as late as the 1940s. 

 

Coal furnaces in the Library of Congress, 1900.  Shoot, and Washington D. C. isn't even all that cold.

But over time this changed to where heating oil, yes another use of petroleum oil and natural gas began to replace coal.  By the 1970s at least the price of heating oil became a major factor in annual fuel price concerns, but nobody really thought much of coal for the same purpose.  You can still buy a coal furnace today, if you are so inclined, but very few people do.  So yet another use of coal yielded to petroleum. And here, over time, petroleum has yielded to natural gas and electrical generation.

 Workman converting coal furnace to oil during World War Two.  Oil was more plentiful and efficient which sparked a government move to convert home heating to oil

Of course electrical generation also became a major use of coal in the early 20th Century, and it remains one today.  But, as has been seen from the trend line above, coal isn't the only option, and here too its a declining one.  While oil did make an appearance in the electrical generation field oil powered power plants are more or less a thing of the past and coal has outlasted them.  There are no oil fired power plants left in the United States and less than a dozen major ones left on Earth.  They're yielding, however, to natural gas, which powers quite a few power plants and which as been replacing coal.  And there are other means of generations electrical power, including wind power which now is cheaper than other forms of electrical generations in some regions of the United States.

 

Dave Johnston Power Plant, 2015.  U.S. Government photograph. 

Okay, so what's the point of this? Well, just this.  Coal has been on a long, slow, decline for over a century.  It isn't that it doesn't work, it's that it can't compete economically with other fuels that do the same thing in an increasing range of uses.  Only in terms of coking for steel production is it indispensable.  Indeed, perhaps signalling an international increase in manufacturing, high grade coal for coking has experienced a sharp recovery in recent months. That doesn't do anything locally, however, as our coal is Bituminous Coal, not Anthracite, and therefore can't be used for coking.

This isn't the view of some green fanatic world view.  It's dollars and cents, and coal producing regions, such as Wyoming, have to consider this. Without a way to address coal's defects, and soon, its diminished share of the fuel market will be considerably smaller irrespective of any environmental or regulatory concerns.  It's been a long trend running back over a century. 

Labels: boats and ships, British Navy, Coal, Daily Living, Industry, Lodging, Mid-Week at Work, Petroleum, Railroads, Transportation, U.S. Navy, United States Fuel Administration

Either blistering ignorance, or the worst kind of cynicism and hypocrisy, or both, are at work here.  Long term market trends such as this are really irreversible. This would be much like trying to mandate horse and carriage use after 1903.  You could, but that wouldn't have stopped the automobile.

Indeed, resource reversals really only occur in dire emergencies resulting in extreme shortages.  That's why the Germans and South Africans worked on converting coal to a liquid fuel.  It wasn't cheap, it was necessary.  Trump is creating an artificial crisis right now, but it's unlikely to result in a need for coal.  Natural gas is still there and his trade policies are likely to torpedo a recent effort to export liquified natural gas.  And more than that, the one thing his administration might actually accomplish in this area is a revival of nuclear, which is already going on anyhow. 

One further good, it might be noted, might come of this.  Democratic administrations have been hostile to coal, although they've done little about it, due to its strong association with Global Warming.  That's given leeway in the coalfields to allow for it to be imagined that the century plus decline in coal is the government's fault, when its economic and technology. Trump's stroke of the pen isn't going to revive coal and believing in the myth will be impossible, except for those who simply willfully choose to deny all reality to their detriment.