Ahaha classy. Those two articles state the most redundant information, I'm amazed that you think they can somehow back up your statement that burning coal isn't bad for the environment.

You do realize that coal itself isn't even what causes global warning right?

When miners dig up coal it doesn't instantly release greenhouse gasses, it's when you burn in it mass quantities that's what releases greenhouse gasses. I thought this **** was common knowledge at this point?

Also most of the stuff in those articles are pointless. Coal can't replace silicon hell it can't even be considered a viable alternative.

It's basic earth chemistry. Silicon is much more abundant and cheaper than coal which probably also needs to be throughly refined in order to used commercially.

To put it in perspective you can pretty much find silicon anywhere in stuff like sand.

Coal on the other hand you have to drill thousands of feet down into the earth to get it.

And it's not like this crap in the second article is consisted entirely of coal. Lmao people don't mine for coal just so they can make mothballs or useless **** like that. The same goes for oil and plastic. Only a fraction of the byproduct of petroleum gets made into plastic and the rest gets used as tar for paving roads.

Stay in school and don't rely on stupid tabloid garbage to make yourself look like you know what you're talking about.

"Lel coal isn't bad for the environment guys."

*Shows two irrelevant articles talking about how coal can be used in things.*

"See totally doesn't cause global warming you stupid liberals."

I told myself I wouldn't post on this dumbass thread anymore but TomatoPanda's posts are just low-hanging fruit.

Hehe, get it?