6 ms·

IMHO, the future is solar energy and storage. If coal wants to remain significant in long term, it has to find arguments.

vanderZwan 9y ago
Completely agree, which is why I find the article frustratingly misleading: nice that the produced metal is 98% pure, but that does not tell me anything about how useful the process as a whole is. But I see that mchannon answered my question, with the answer I expected https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16567314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16567314
pjc50 9y ago
Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. The coal industry may want, but like everyone else they're not guaranteed relevance in the long term. Going out of business is capitalism's way of saying your product is no longer required.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. This is pedantic to the point of wilfully not wanting to understand that the coal industry is implied with that statement. But if we're going down the pedantic route: > Going out of business is capitalism's way of saying your product is no longer required. Demand and need are correlated, but not the same. Capitalism works with the former, and also has an entire industry devoted to creating demand when there is no need. I'm not saying capitalism is bad - it is an amoral system and a very effective tool for a lot of things. By itself self-regulates only to the vested interests of the people wielding the tools within the capitalist system, and this does not have to align with societal or planetary needs.
  - d0lph 9y ago
    Capitalism exclusively aligns with societal needs, if society does not need or want something we don't buy it, the business evolves or goes bankrupt. Capitalism is not just amoral, but also is democratic in nature.
    - OrganicMSG 9y ago
      If society does not need or want something, there is an entire industry devoted to convincing society otherwise, that uses psychological and social modelling on vast and detailed databases of the targeted population. Democratic systems these days are not followed, they are moulded.
      - d0lph 9y ago
        Really, because I thought there was debate of whether or not advertising actually works, especially online advertising. However, at the end of the day it won't matter. Advertising is available to all companies, we end up with a tug of war over peoples attentions, which will probably result in advertising becoming ineffective.
        dpark 9y ago
        > Really, because I thought there was debate of whether or not advertising actually works, especially online advertising. No, there is no debate. No one seriously argues that companies pour half a trillion dollars into advertising that doesn't work. > However, at the end of the day it won't matter. Advertising is available to all companies, we end up with a tug of war over peoples attentions, which will probably result in advertising becoming ineffective. It does matter. If the tug of war is between two companies that want you to buy their version of X, there is still no one advertising that you should not buy X at all. This is known as growing the market. Demand is still created in this case.
        d0lph 9y ago
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/research-shows-millennials-dont-respond-to-ads/#2fc4bf785dcb https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/researc... It's at least not a new thought. Mostly though I'm skeptical that advertising is subverting capitalism. Is demand created though? How do you know that some people weren't just unaware of the product before, and would have gladly bought it had they known of it. Because not buying something is the easiest, and default position.
- dpark 9y ago
  > Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. And capitalism has no speech capacity. If you’re going to be pedantic to the point of abrasiveness, at least don’t use the same shorthand you are criticizing.
logfromblammo 9y ago
I could see an argument for coal used to enrich soil for agriculture, if there were a way to economically remove all the toxic metals from it. Urine and bone meal would round it out. It could be a carbon source for a new type of terra preta. It would even be useful for the high-sulfur coals.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Both energy and resource-wise it's much cheaper to just grow plants and char them. And you probably end up with side-benefits from growing plants in the process.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    What if one of your goals is to buy votes of otherwise-unemployed coal miners? If the coal has no economic uses for energy production, but the mining has some reason to happen anyway, where the coal itself becomes a by-product, turning it into agricultural soil wouldn't be entirely horrible. The heavy metals would probably have to be removed before disposing of it anyway.

vanderZwan 9y ago

Completely agree, which is why I find the article frustratingly misleading: nice that the produced metal is 98% pure, but that does not tell me anything about how useful the process as a whole is. But I see that mchannon answered my question, with the answer I expected https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16567314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16567314

pjc50 9y ago

Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. The coal industry may want, but like everyone else they're not guaranteed relevance in the long term. Going out of business is capitalism's way of saying your product is no longer required.

vanderZwan 9y ago
> Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. This is pedantic to the point of wilfully not wanting to understand that the coal industry is implied with that statement. But if we're going down the pedantic route: > Going out of business is capitalism's way of saying your product is no longer required. Demand and need are correlated, but not the same. Capitalism works with the former, and also has an entire industry devoted to creating demand when there is no need. I'm not saying capitalism is bad - it is an amoral system and a very effective tool for a lot of things. By itself self-regulates only to the vested interests of the people wielding the tools within the capitalist system, and this does not have to align with societal or planetary needs.
- d0lph 9y ago
  Capitalism exclusively aligns with societal needs, if society does not need or want something we don't buy it, the business evolves or goes bankrupt. Capitalism is not just amoral, but also is democratic in nature.
  - OrganicMSG 9y ago
    If society does not need or want something, there is an entire industry devoted to convincing society otherwise, that uses psychological and social modelling on vast and detailed databases of the targeted population. Democratic systems these days are not followed, they are moulded.
    - d0lph 9y ago
      Really, because I thought there was debate of whether or not advertising actually works, especially online advertising. However, at the end of the day it won't matter. Advertising is available to all companies, we end up with a tug of war over peoples attentions, which will probably result in advertising becoming ineffective.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > Really, because I thought there was debate of whether or not advertising actually works, especially online advertising. No, there is no debate. No one seriously argues that companies pour half a trillion dollars into advertising that doesn't work. > However, at the end of the day it won't matter. Advertising is available to all companies, we end up with a tug of war over peoples attentions, which will probably result in advertising becoming ineffective. It does matter. If the tug of war is between two companies that want you to buy their version of X, there is still no one advertising that you should not buy X at all. This is known as growing the market. Demand is still created in this case.
        d0lph 9y ago
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/research-shows-millennials-dont-respond-to-ads/#2fc4bf785dcb https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/researc... It's at least not a new thought. Mostly though I'm skeptical that advertising is subverting capitalism. Is demand created though? How do you know that some people weren't just unaware of the product before, and would have gladly bought it had they known of it. Because not buying something is the easiest, and default position.
dpark 9y ago
> Coal is not conscious, it cannot want. And capitalism has no speech capacity. If you’re going to be pedantic to the point of abrasiveness, at least don’t use the same shorthand you are criticizing.

logfromblammo 9y ago

I could see an argument for coal used to enrich soil for agriculture, if there were a way to economically remove all the toxic metals from it. Urine and bone meal would round it out. It could be a carbon source for a new type of terra preta. It would even be useful for the high-sulfur coals.

vanderZwan 9y ago
Both energy and resource-wise it's much cheaper to just grow plants and char them. And you probably end up with side-benefits from growing plants in the process.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  What if one of your goals is to buy votes of otherwise-unemployed coal miners? If the coal has no economic uses for energy production, but the mining has some reason to happen anyway, where the coal itself becomes a by-product, turning it into agricultural soil wouldn't be entirely horrible. The heavy metals would probably have to be removed before disposing of it anyway.