Assuming we can capture and store emissions, should we continue to rely on coal as a primary energy source?

No

8 of 8

by Louis B.

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The environmental damage, and heath effect on the public, and workers is primarily caused during the refining process.
strip mines, and mine workers suffer from lung Cancer wile huge amounts of oil is used to extract the coal from the land.
Trucks use diesel fuel as do bull dossiers too.
This primarily raising the cost to do work.
The chemical exchange from coal to heat is only cost effective when it is burned, with no money spent to protect the environment.
The more money that is spent on high tech refineries, and high tech filtration system, the longer it takes to gain any real savings over conventional fuels, such as water, or fuel that already burns clean.

On the other hand carbon is better used for the cleaning of contaminates of water.
Uses for carbon to clean drinking water is cost effective, and safer for consumers.
uses in water filtration systems, fish tanks, cat boxes and for the absorption of environmental damaging chemicals, is much more energy efficient than chemicals that react dangerously when combined.

Carbon does a great job in filtration of air systems, it reduces odour causing bacteria, and also helps in the preventing of potentially more hazardous, and dangerous chemicals being relies into the atmosphere, and ground water.
In conclusion, The burning of coal as fuel Is not environmentally, or energy cost efficient
to say the least.
Carbon / carbon-fiber reduces weight in vehicles result in lower energy consumption over a much shorter time. Daily drivers will benefit from lower vehicle weight, and lower fuel cost.
Look for carbon fiber companies that custom fabricate, and build high strength light weight carbon solutions cheaply, and cost effectively for there leadership.

Learn more about this author, Louis B..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.