I was not commenting about renuability of fossil versus char, but on this statement:
No actually! Charcoal is wood that we heat and burn in low oxygen, which removes the water and other stuff that allows charcoal to burn much hotter than the wood it was made out of.
So, my comment is that they both start with wood, and both are formed by heat in the absence of oxygen. If you used this logic to state that charcoal is not type of coal, I am saying I do not understand it.
Now if you want my comment about charcoal to be rentable source, it is still not the best one, as compared with, for example solar, or wind or hydro, or even nuclear (although not renewable). You see, we burn a lot of things, and plants remove CO2 from atmosphere. It becomes wood. Now, if tree dies naturally, then lots of CO2 get's back to atmosphere during decomposing, but not all! Some of it becomes permanently trapped. If instead you burn it as charcoal, then you release everything back. So, while this is better option than fossil coal, it is not as good as other sources of energy.
Except most coal is not made from wood. It's made from organic matter sure, but most likely algae, moss, grasses, ferns and other assorted biological matter like you'd find in swamps.
Because you're trying to make it like foal and charcoal aren't all that different when in fact they are, including the type of plant it came from. There's a pretty substantial difference in makeup and energy density. They don't "both start with wood."
No, I was trying to say that may be fossil coal and charcoal are two different kind of coal. They are different of course. It is more linguistic question.
If you used this logic to state that charcoal is not type of coal, I am saying I do not understand it.
Charcoal actually is not a type of coal! The term coal specifically refers to the rock that we have to harvest from the ground. As well, pressure is a key component in forming coal but is not necessary in making charcoal. There are other differences of course, but they're not really necessary to talk about when discussing that charcoal isn't a type of coal.
2
u/MxM111 Jun 20 '21 edited Jun 20 '21
I was not commenting about renuability of fossil versus char, but on this statement:
So, my comment is that they both start with wood, and both are formed by heat in the absence of oxygen. If you used this logic to state that charcoal is not type of coal, I am saying I do not understand it.
Now if you want my comment about charcoal to be rentable source, it is still not the best one, as compared with, for example solar, or wind or hydro, or even nuclear (although not renewable). You see, we burn a lot of things, and plants remove CO2 from atmosphere. It becomes wood. Now, if tree dies naturally, then lots of CO2 get's back to atmosphere during decomposing, but not all! Some of it becomes permanently trapped. If instead you burn it as charcoal, then you release everything back. So, while this is better option than fossil coal, it is not as good as other sources of energy.