Better microelectronics from coal?
>formatting linkPerfect for 2D electronics?
Coal consumption in the US peaked in 2007 but there is still a s*it load of it shipped about.
On weekday overnights on this rail cam in Kearney, Nebraska you can watch 200 car unit coal trains run by maybe about every 45 minutes on average, all night long.
Don't you love the insinuation that the semiconductor industry is going to save the coal mining industry as we move away from using coal as fuel? That's hilarious.
Jeroen Belleman
A lump of coal in Biden's stocking next Christmas!
Jeroen Belleman
Using a a grapheme layer a couple of carbon atoms thick in your electronics isn't going to use much coal.
It's certainly true that burning coal wastes a very useful chemical resource, but using coal as a chemical feed stock isn't likely to make enough money to keep more than one mine open. The fine chemical business can be lucrative but it isn't all that big.
The mountains of Nebraska?
Would you want everyone to be smart and beautiful like us?
The machine executes the operation selected by that word. If you program in assembler there's pretty much a one-to-correspondence between words and operations. In higher level languages this is rare.
Touting poorly designed electronic as "insanely good" does seem to be one of them.
Closer to home, John Larkin imagines that he designs his electronics, when he merely cobbles stuff together. He never talks about discarding an inadequate design and starting over.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required