why, page-13

Uhh... oh dear, famoso's gotten on google. I might have to take my comment back about doing some research if this is result, cause he's got it all about-face. I guess I meant "do some proper research" and not "google lignite for two minutes."

Here's why famoso is wrong:

Higher fixed carbon is better. A good coal has up over 50%, preferably up towards 60%. So if his comment about lignite is true, and this has less than 30% fixed carbon... then that makes this coal worse than lignite.

In other words, it makes it peat!

Clearly this is not peat, so he is WRONG.

Psi81 first claims it is this type of coal the re-traces!!!

I did not re-trace. First I said "basically a lignite" and then I said "either a lignite or a low-grade sub-bituminous" - which is saying exactly the same thing because there is a zone of overlap between the two depending on which source you consult. Some will call that call lignite, some sub-C, but there's no arguing about its quality.

In saying this lignite coal is still widely used globaly to fuel power plants to generate electricity

As I clearly said. It's just lignite doesn't get a very high price.

I've personally blocked him because I believe his intention aren't what their all cracked up to be.

Good. It certainly will make it a lot easier discredit a blatant ramper when he stops replying with factually incorrect claims.