Coal is good for humanity

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
So the Mining Industry is sponsoring a new ad to talk up the benefits of coal. As if Australians were not already aware of what it is used for. The Ad conveniently ignores any of the negative affects that coal has on global warming or other environmental impacts. I am surprised that this ad was even remotely considered to be a smart idea.

We already have the Prime Minister stating that coal is good for humanity.. just goes to show the huge pull the mining industry has over Australian politics and the media.

Watch the ad: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ew-coal-is-amazing-tv-ad-slammed-as-desperate

It is priceless.
 
I remember seeing a similar ad on Youtube telling all the good news about oil.

I don't disagree with the fact that a large portion of the world economy is based off of coal and oil, but it's ludicrous to think we can continue to survive without changing over to renewable resources.

I think these sorts of ads also have a positive side, though. They show that the oil and coal companies are becoming desperate to retain the public's favor.
 
We shoud power Australia on the hot air the Liberal Party produces. That is definitely a renewbale energy source.
 
Gradea:
We shoud power Australia on the hot air the Liberal Party produces. That is definitely a renewbale energy source.
Click to expand...
:agree: :winner:

They should do that with the liberals, democrats and socialists in the US! :clap:

Actually, about 90% of all pharmaceuticals are synthesised from bituminous coal (which, of course, makes it almost to valuable to burn as a fuel unless you 'gassify' the volitiles).

The most important thing that coal (bituminous) is absolutely necessary for is the production of good quality steel via the Bessermer Reduction Process (by which you can precisely control the carbon content and purity of the final product) which cannot be accomplished by "electric hearth" processes. Without coal, you get crappy steel at best which rusts away or fatigues easily.

The very existence of the modern world is the result of the coal which powered the industrial revolution. No coal, no modern worlds and we'd be screwed if we didn't or hadn't use/used coal.
 
I agree that it was great for humanity at one point in time, but that time is fading away and we need to invest in renewables and other sources of energy that aren't going to destroy the planet.

But like quak said, it shows how desperate the industry is.
 
A small nugget of coal, swallowed, settles the stomach far better than a similar-sized nugget of uranium.

Fact.
 
Romanoffia:
They should do that with the liberals, democrats and socialists in the US! :clap:
Click to expand...
<_<

Anyways...

I do think coal is a very strong resource to use for power. However, I don't think renewable energy, even though it's green-efficient, will produce as much power as coal and other fossil fuels do. We need to look into using chemistry and science to try and create 'artificial fossil fuels', if they're even possible, as well as trying to find other ways of containing fossil fuel waste rather than carelessly throwing it into the sky. It's not about what else we can do with renewable energy, but what else we can do with lessening fossil fuel pollution while still keeping fossil fuels. If anyone comes up with a solution for that, then that is definitely innovation; more than any tree-hugger can preach.
 
No. There are far too many problems with solar fucking roadways for them to work.

Like at all.
 
Yeah. Assuming that every single American road was just one metre wide (ha), to replace the 6,586,610 kilometres, that's 4 092 729.71 miles American, it would cost 455,000,000,000 (455 billion) dollars just in panels alone, going off of the company behind the projects 2010 estimate of $70 per panel.
 
Nierr:
Yeah. Assuming that every single American road was just one metre wide (ha), to replace the 6,586,610 kilometres, that's 4 092 729.71 miles American, it would cost 455,000,000,000 (455 billion) dollars just in panels alone, going off of the company behind the projects 2010 estimate of $70 per panel.
Click to expand...
All that means is that we still have further to go to make solar panels of all types more efficient, and of that type more affordable. I am sure that the first draft of the power plant or the steam engine or whatever wasn't perfect either. That's no reason to give up on things! It's motivation to do better.

It's also a perfectly reasonable thing to start on an individual level, with driveways/walkways/etc. Small things like that do make a difference, and they're incredibly important steps away from reliance on things that are killing us, and they can set the stage for national progress.
 
Romanoffia:
Gradea:
We shoud power Australia on the hot air the Liberal Party produces. That is definitely a renewbale energy source.
Click to expand...
:agree: :winner:

They should do that with the liberals, democrats and socialists all politicians in the US! :clap:

Actually, about 90% of all pharmaceuticals are synthesised from bituminous coal (which, of course, makes it almost to valuable to burn as a fuel unless you 'gassify' the volitiles).

The most important thing that coal (bituminous) is absolutely necessary for is the production of good quality steel via the Bessermer Reduction Process (by which you can precisely control the carbon content and purity of the final product) which cannot be accomplished by "electric hearth" processes. Without coal, you get crappy steel at best which rusts away or fatigues easily.

The very existence of the modern world is the result of the coal which powered the industrial revolution. No coal, no modern worlds and we'd be screwed if we didn't or hadn't use/used coal.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
I believe we should expand our use of fossil fuels. We all know global warming isn't real, and even if it is, who cares about some people suddenly having beachfront property AMIRITE?! LOL!

Seriously, though, I'm a big fan of renewable energy because it's better for the environment and more economical in the long run. I'd like to see some sources on the "coal use in pharmaceuticals" bit, as I've never heard it before. Coal tar, perhaps, has uses in psoriasis and other skin conditions, but AFAIK plenty of drugs have nothing to do with coal at all.
 
Well, let's say you want to make some indigo dye. You can take the long and expensive process of growing indigo plants and chemically processing them to make the dye, or you can sit down and find a way to make it from coal, which you can just dig out of the ground instead of growing and raising plants.
In the late 19th century, some German scientists figured out how to do just that. The price of indigo dropped, now that more could be made faster, and the dye became common in everyday life.
 
Nebula:
We should stop burning coal and oil and start using it entirely for chemical production.
Click to expand...

That sounds better than... driving ourselves to extinction, but we'd still run out of coal and oil, so we'll need alternatives eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top