Bitcoin Forum

Environmentalists killed the coal as a fuel source, but coal is abundant and easy to mine. The big problem with the use of coal is the emissions, but recent research into the cultivation of micro-algae iis creating the possibility of using the emissions to farm oil rich micro-algae, and these can be used to create bio fuel. This combination will have a double benefit - the coal can be used to generate electricity to sarisfy the increasing demand for this energy source. The bio fuel can be used to power vehicles to reduce the environmentally damaging switch to electric vehicles.

coal mining sucks anyway i would prefer seeing fusion energy excel, dont need coal as energy source, potentially only as a material source for plastics.

and who is worldwide investing most in fusion -> EUrope which the stupid brits have weakened i hope they will suffer for that, they have forgotten the times they have sent children into coal mines

Coal is still a pretty horrible industry to have around, the amount of emissions is immense for the energy provided. Though we can't just write coal off though, as a large part of our nation (and the world) still relies on coal as their main fuel source.

There are some people that are obviously going to be angry about losing these jobs though, as this is their life.

There are much better fuel sources (emissions wise) such as natural gas, oil, and then nuclear, solar, hydropower, etc.

They've been talking about this for years and I still haven't heard of a good fuel made from algae. It would definitely be nice if they manage to pull it off.

I believe the main benefit would be to soak up the excess fertilizers that are being dumped into the oceans. Normally the algal bloom would just consume all the oxygen in the water as they rot, causing deadzones. If the algae would actually be useful, people would be farming there in deltas and removing them regularly.

Revive? It would be great if its effects can be neutralized or at least mitigated but I'd rather have it replaced by far more renewable or efficient energy sources.


I agree. Many countries are still reliant on coal. The industrialization of China would have been impossible without using it.

I'm under the impression that second to it is nuclear, low emissions and I think a small amount goes a long way. Only drawback is the waste produced but if that can be dealt with, I think countries where it is safe to build these plants should and sell the electricity to other.

I guess when we finally have superconductors every country can just link up into one grid where each shares what they are best at producing.

The best option we have at the moment is without a doubt nuclear, people have to stop being so scared about it and stop worrying about some of the issues of the past --> People latch onto events that rarely happen (such as Chernobyl) and only happen due to horrid HORRID management.

In our current age, with the right regulations in place -- a good mixture of nuclear, solar, and wind is going to be able to change the world.

Though even with this mixture, I don't think it's fair  to ban coal or oil or gas -- allow them to compete to bring the best product to the forefront.

It isn't a double benefit unless you stop burning the coal or use the algae as feed instead of fuel.  Even if all of your carbon dioxide emissions from coal were absorbed by algae, they are just released again when you burn the algae.   All combustion of hydrocarbons releases carbon dioxide.  You can't cut back without cutting back. 

Following this logic, since trees decomposing emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the trees should all be cut down and tossed down mineshafts.

Trees don't net decompose if you don't cut them down in the first place.  That is why we have to cut back on meat and deforestation and leave all of the fossil fuels in the ground.  Its cutting down the trees that is bad. A live tree absorbs CO2.  Bolsonaro is the climate equivalent of a war criminal.

the problem arent the trees, its the fosil carbons that are being unearthed.

EVen though the emissions from coal burns can be used to create bio fuels,governments not doing it due to high expense compared to other form of energy production.UN also passed a statment that all the countries need to reduce their green house gase production still governments not finding the right way of doing it.

Of course they decompose if not cut down. They fall down and decompose, if not burned down in a forest fire.

Cutting them down is good. When they are cut down and incorporated into homes and buildings, that is when they likely do not decompose for a very long time.

And it's important to eat more meat. I think I'll buy some steaks today, from cattle that went through six different feedlots before slaughter. Special feedlots where they were fed enriched corn.

I wonder if there is any difference in environmental impact if we pick Prime versus Select or Choice beef?

Whats the carbon footprint of dry aged prime?

Well, Fukushima was a reminder that even with better management there are still risks but yes, I think it's quite clean in comparison with fossil fuels. I am still for gradual phase out of fossil fuels. Like, they'd just be a stepping stone to creating the equipment needed for greener sources.