Talk:Clean coal technology

message: This page is extremely weak on the very topics that it should cover.  The topics it does cover already have their own pages (Clean coal, Environmental effects of coal, Carbon capture and sequestration, etc etc etc).  Where is there a technical discussion about CCS?  Oxy-fired coal combustion technology?  Gasification technology, as it pertains to making coal cleaner?  Underground coal thermal treatment?  Chemical looping combustion with coal?  None of these are mentioned, or are mentioned only in passing, and yet these are the topics that should make up the majority of the article's content - technologies used to mitigate negative environmental impacts of coal (i.e. to make coal "cleaner", whatever that means - and if you want to debate what that means, do it at the Clean coal page).  Clean coal doesn't just mean putting a scrubber on your flue stack - there's a lot more to it, none of which is covered by the article. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sections needed 

message: 1. Pre-combustion Technologies
1a. Pre-combustion coal treatment
1b. Coal combustion additives
2. Combustion retrofit/alternative(s) technologies 
2a. Oxy-fired coal combustion
2b. Coal gasification (including IGCC, supercritical gasification, plasma gasification, and other subjects related to gasification)
2c. Circulating fluidized bed combustion
2d. Chemical looping combustion
2e. In-situ utilization of coal (underground coal gasification and thermal treatment)
3. Post combustion Technologies
3a. Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS)
3b. Mercury capture
3c. Other Pollutants (SOx, NOx; should include discussion of how these are also affected by pre-combustion technologies and combustion alternatives or retrofit technologies being used)
NOTE: The focus of these sections would not be an overview or explanation of the topic, e.g., what chemical looping is, but rather it would emphasize the particular techniques used for chemical looping in the context of clean coal technology, and explain what the technology contributes to the concept of mitigating the negative environmental effects of coal.
Please suggest any additions/merges/removal.
--Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Adding Sections: 

message: From the opening paragraph:
"The expenditure has been unsuccessful to date in that there is not a single commercial scale coal fired power station in the US that captures and stores more than token amounts of CO2.[12]"
What is a "token amount"?  The reference is for a political (and clearly biased) group, which shouldn't be considered legitimate.
Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "token amount"?? 

message: It’s no wonder that it seems so difficult to get this page to be NPV. The term “Clean coal technology” is an advertising phrase. If you search with Google the results come back for coal-industry sites and to sites objecting to the implication of the term. Wouldn’t it be better to include the content from this page on pages dealing with methods of using coal and methods of dealing with coal byproducts? Other parts obviously belong on a page on Global warming. I’m not so interested in this subject to get involved in “what goes where” but it just seems silly to be trying to twist this advertising phrase into a NPV page.--Another-sailor (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the name that was coined by the mining industry.  It is also a complete misnomer given the inherent flaws in the concept.  However, it has become the common name for attempts to make coal a more environmentally friendly product.  I sincerely don't like the misleading nature of the name, but think that it needs to remain the same given that it is the widely used term for this concept.Nitack (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an industry term.  Some people think there are flaws in the current implementations or proposals, others don't -- that's POV.  Since we do not know all the ways to use coal, it is unrealistic to make a blanket statement and say there are inherent flaws in the concept.  Especially since environmental impact is completely subjective.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether there are flaws in the concept or not, it is still an advertising or public relations term only used by coal industry promoters (including a current rash of politicians). Environmental impact is studied and has been verified. It is not “subjective”. And, why did you try to suggest there is question that coal is a fossil fuel? Are you confusing it with the attempts to get us to think that oil is not a remnant of organic material?--Another-sailor (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are totally wrong.  First it is NOT only used by coal industry promotees.  Second, environmental impact is completely subjective and nowhere near agreed on by most scientists; to date, there is little to no science in the supposed claims which are largely politically motivated. Third, the idea that coal is a fossil fuel is a theory which has been falling out of favor with scientists for some time.  You reverted my edits so that you could keep a negative POV (against Wikipedia policy).  This article, as it stands, is a propaganda effort against clean coal.  There is nothing neutral about this article, and your revert of my additions is against Wikipedia policy.  If you have a problem with clean coal, you will need to put in in the critisims section.CrimsonSage (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CrimsonSage, You are apparently very confused about quite a number of things.  To say that coal is not a fossil fuel is quite simply ignorant.  Please see both the coal page and the fossil fuel page.  Now if you have some source for your claims that coal is not a fossil fuel that is credible I am sure we would love to see it.  However, with out a source this would be considered WP:Original Research and has no place in an article.  You seem very fond of quoting Wikipedia policy on POV but are not very familiar with all the policies of Wikipedia.  May I suggest you read them?  I would also suggest you actually read and understand the terms you talk about before you make changes.  That coal is a fossil fuel is an undisputed fact.  Environmental impact is also not disputed by any reputable source.  Even the coal industry recognizes the need to clean up their product... hence they put together this whole "clean coal" campaign.  After all, why would we need to clean anything up if it were not dirty/hazardous in the first place?  Nitack (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitack. No, I am not confused at all, actually. As I've explained earlier, the natrual coal synthesis process is a distraction from the idea of NPOV of this article and we can discuss all that later.  And, that has nothing to do with my personal views or opinions.  As mentioned, abiotic oil is rapidly becoming the accepted theory and abiotic coal processes have more recently been discussed and been put forth as theory. That is not the major part of contention in this article, however, and can be adressed at some future time (after the POV is restored to neutral tone). And please, don't be condecending.  I've obviously read the Wikipedia policies and we all know 'exactly' what YOU are doing with this biased article against clean coal technology. By the way, there you go again with the phrase 'any reputable source' - in your view, any source that disagrees with your highly biased view must be 'non-reputable.' Again, you say 'even the coal industry' ... 'their product' ... etc. Just look at the way you talk, it's amazing. The fact is, many people, including those in the 'coal industry' (as you put it) believe that there are certain disadvantages to using coal in the way it is generally used today. But the hazards that you're concentrating on with coal, namely so-called anthopogenic climate change and global warming (and related junk science) are not the principle hazards.  Many of the reasons why certain aspects of the combustion are even being discussed (like the idea of CO2 capture) are not because of good science and/or true hazards, but rather scientific ignorance and very bad, very totalitarian policy.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: There's a debate on whether the first sentence of the Intro should refer to "Clean coal" as an umbrella term or a public relations term.  I believe that it quite clearly fits the description of an umbrella term, as technologies such as gasification, IGCC and carbon capture and storage are in intense development and not just public relations-figments, so I'm reverting the sentence back to as I had it.  However, I think we should ask if there's some kind of consensus on this - which do you think we should use? Simesa (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two sources used as references for "clean coal" being a public relations term, one  is the home page of a wiki which doesn't support the conclusion and in fact has several "clean coal" articles itself (and a wiki can't meet WP:RS anyway), and the other  is a blog. Simesa (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can and probably is, both an “Umbrella term" and a "Public relations term”. I would have said “advertising term” but – though also true – it may sound a bit negative. I think it is ok the way it is now (with my last edit).  (But don’t try to tell me it is a “generic term”.)  In industry when they talk about what is being done to eliminate or deal with waste products, they talk about specifics. “Clean coal” is always intended to evoke an emotional reaction. Can anyone show me one instance where the term is used otherwise?--Another-sailor (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "clean coal" is both a vague term and a term that promotes a particular point of view, I would describe it as a weasel word. Wikipedia's policy is to avoid weasel words, so describing "clean coal" in the introduction as an "umbrella term" without mentioning that it is a "public relations term" or a "weasel word" is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.Woood (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I was just listening to an NPR discussion on clean coal technology. I have also read many articles in the news/science magazines/ online content and blogs. My opinion is that "Clean coal technology" has become a widely accepted term to simply mean "use of technology to minimize environmental impact while producing energy from coal". Therefore calling it a "Public relations term" is incorrect. It would be a "Public relations term" if it was a term used exclusively by a small group with vested interest (corporations, politicians). "Clean coal" can be considered an umbrella term just like the "green technology". I would strongly support removing the "Public relations term" description. V j (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Umbrella term" vs. "Public relations" term

message: This article is overwhelmingly a POV against clean coal technology. There are very few citations that support clean coal, but editors are quick to cite criticisms and expand these areas of the clean coal article.  Therefore I am going to seek to expand the pro side to balance this article out.  So many people claim neutrality and use POV under the guise to protect their own POV cloaked as the "truth of the matter" when this is hardly the case.
Therefore, until we can come to consensus, I request that that neutrality dispute be left alone.
(talk)
:The article is very well cited and just because you don't agree with the information cited does not make it unbalanced.  The fact that you are actively looking for "pro clean coal" information is an example of your own inability to be objective.  Find legitimate (academic, government, scientific) sources for new information to be added and no one will object to including them in the article.  Removing information that you don't like simply because you don't like it is unacceptable.  Please read WP:NPOV because you don't seem to understand it. Nitack (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Citing Discover Magazine, The London Guardian, and several obviously biased web sites does not constitute a well-cited article.  References like this only show what direction political winds are moving in, and say nothing technically significant.  More scientific and peer-reviewed sources of information, such as the MIT "Future of Coal" report, are needed before you can characterize the article as well-cited. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective is not to show any particular subject as having balanced pros and cons, but to simply reflect the reality of the current knowledge. Simply because Clean Coal still has significant cons does not mean that we have to somehow balance them with an equal number of significant pros. We simply have to list them as they are reported.  --Skyemoor (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Look up two headings... expanding on the "technologies" was suggested.  As for the environmental issues, I strongly disagree.  The concept of clean coal was the industry response to environmental concerns about coal burning and CO2.  Additionally, with an unproven concept, that has a very specific goal of making coal more environmentally acceptable, both support and criticism of the concept are absolutely appropriate, just as if this were a viable technology we would see sections for both the strengths and shortcomings.  Nitack (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After having read this article, I actually felt that it was fairly decent at describing what the technologies do. In fact, I was thinking that the neutrality argument was claiming that it was too pro-clean coal until I read the comments. While it is true that the article can use some more statistics based on cost and pollution in relation to other energy sources, I felt that it more or less described exactly what the term has been coined to mean: an ongoing series of technologies designed to address public concern about the environmental impact of coal fired power plants. Just my 2 cents worth. --JKBodylski (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Dispute

message: "clean" coal is oxymoronic, in a similar way to "surgical warfare".
I'm inclined to agree. The opposition has failed to describe in detail how a high percentage of the pollutants can be kept out of our environment, even if we concede that it is ok for clean coal technology to cost several times the cost of dirty coal technology.Ccpoodle (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. So far this is only mentioned in the article as a quote. Would be nice to find a good reference for it and add it more prominently... Splette :) How's my driving? 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said above, this article isn't the place to debate whether clean coal is an oxymoron or not - that discussion belongs on the Clean coal page.  This is the Clean coal technology (empahsis on technology) page, meaning it should address technologies used to mitigate the negative environmental effects of coal, regardless of whether that makes coal objectively judged as "clean".Charlesreid1 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   oxymoronic  

message: I am somewhat concerned that an article about a potentially major trend in global energy production (for better or for worse) is being mangled by POV ideologues on both sides. I would remind both pro- and anti- 'clean coal technology' editors that putting your points across in an amateurish fashion undermines your arguments rather than supports them. I also note that as everyone from the IEA and the EU to Greenpeace and anti-coal commentators refer openly to clean coal as a concept, it is quite clearly an umbrella term. While this may indeed be a misnomer, attempts to classify 'clean coal technology' as a public relations term are facile; the term, rightly or wrongly, is now common parlance. I will attempt to edit this article into something genuinely NPOV over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, if I could remind all editors that a Wikipedia article is not a place to stand on your soapbox, however 'right' you opinions may be. SupernautRemix (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A week ago the article was way to the left, now it is way to the right.  The article ought to cover multiple points of view.  If nothing else, then there should be sections for "proponents" and "opponents".  Mikiemike (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Neutralpov has reverted the changes removing 'public relations term' from the initial paragraph, citing prior concensus. Having gone through the talk archive, I cannot see any consensus for keeping 'public relations term' in the article (quite the reverse, in fact), although I do appreciate that there are a number of sensible concerns about it being an inappropriate term. I do not wish to set off an editing war on this particular point and I appreciate that there is some strong feeling over this - so could someone please supply a valid reference for clean coal being a term that has been specifically contrived for use in public relations. SupernautRemix (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to all. I have drafted a new opening paragraph which I believe balances the different views on this subject that I intend to upload after Christmas. As this would be a major change, I would like to give a few details about the citations I have used so that people will be prepared for it (and so hopefully avoiding a full reversion to the current version). I have referenced the MIT 'Future of Coal' report for general information and setting out the stall for supporting clean coal. For specific criticisms I have referenced The Guardian, Greenpeace, Edinburgh University, the Discovery Channel and NBC. I should note that the reason for using one 'supportive' reference and five 'critical' references is purely that the MIT report is fairly comprehensive in its scope, while the anti references focus more on specifics. While I appreciate that these sources are not necessarily unbiased, I believe that they are reputable, at least in line with Wikipedia policies. If this rewrite is broadly accepted (subject to the usual tweaking), I will attempt to tidy up the rest of the article. SupernautRemix (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK guys. Looks like things are progressing nicely - thanks to all who have and are continuing to contribute. I am a little concerned that we're attempting to cram a bit too much into the opening section and it's starting to become a bit unwieldly again. I was thinking of trying to summarise some of the new content and shifting the more detailed stuff into the appropriate section further down the page to keep the opening section accessible. Any thoughts? SupernautRemix (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: i got to this link from a very one-sided discussion at current.com.  the basic tone there was a repeat of "clean coal is an oxymoron."
my expectations upon clicking the wikipedia link were to find a definitional discussion with explanations of what "clean coal" means and how it may be achieved, rather than an ongoing diatribe of how clean coal is impossible and forty-three ways that coal mining and coal-driven power generation can be nothing but pure evil to people and the earth's environment.
as such, i'm extremely disappointed with the content, tone and language of this entry.
i would strongly suggest that the pros and cons be linked FROM this page to TWO separate entries:  one on the possible positive effects of coal "if used in a clean way" and the obvious counterpoint of why coal can't be clean under any circumstances.
as it stands, this appears to me to be a one-sided opinion piece against "clean coal", whatever "that" is.  i'm tempted to google the term to see if ANY objective descriptions [which i expected to find here] exist anywhere on the web.  i would have expected SOME representatives from the electric power industry to have offered definitions or examples of processes which could explain what "clean coal" means or could achieve.
i would like to suggest that the entry start with an overview of "what the term means" followed by implementations and processes which could/would/might achieve that goal or "standard" before taking the deep dive into how it's impossible.
Plusaf (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand wikipedia practice is to have For and Against for controversial topics on one page. It might be useful to have a link to the actual technology of Carbon capture and storage at the top of this page. That is the page to have the technology article. dinghy (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the issue here is that clean coal technology isn't just about carbon capture, but also relates to the removal of other pollutants. Plusaf, you are right that this is a biased article. There are a lot of people who seem to want to sand on their soapboxes on this issue; to be honest, I reckon that sensible edits to this article are something of a losing battle.SupernautRemix (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I would be willing to edit this entry to add the engineering perspective, which is likely to be more conceptually objective, but I'm not sure any edits made to this article will be spared the political knife. Environmentally friendly coal is a difficult project, but plants have the advantage of being stationary emissions producers. Unfortunately most environmental activists and firms focus on the carbon content of coal as inherently evil. Intelligent discussions are being bogged down here by unfair bias and reactionary bias. We need an admin moderated editing process to fix this political warfield.98.185.212.44 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very disappointing entry... 

message: I could not find this article:
* Ikip (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed links

message: The coal industry has responded by running advertising touting clean coal in an effort to counter negative perceptions, as well as by putting more than $50 billion towards the development and deployment of clean coal technologies, including carbon capture and storage.[11] The expenditure has been unsuccessful to date in that there is not a single commercial scale coal fired power station in the US that captures and stores more than token amounts of CO2. is odd. The reason tehre are no successful plants is because it is uneconomic. It is obviously uneconomic: given that there are no costs to emitting CO2, a plant that spends money stopping CO2 emissions can't compete with one that doesn't, unless it is subsidised William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: Needs discussion of supercritical burning techniques.  Integrated gasification combined cycle 
Ocdnctx (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be perfectly clear, IGCC and supercritical gasification are completely separate concepts. It sounds as though you are aliasing the two. That being said, I have already (section Talk:Clean_coal_technology#More_sections_needed above) given a recommended outline for an improved article that focuses more on clean coal technologies and less on the controversial topic of "cleanliness;" both IGCC and supercritical gasification would naturally belong in the combustion retrofit technologies section. Charlesreid1 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs discussion of supercritical (IGCC) burning techniques 

message: Hello. My name is Robert and I am an official representative of Peabody Energy here on Wikipedia. I've been hired by Peabody to upload images owned by the company to Wikimedia Commons and seek to add relevant images into Wikipedia articles to offer useful illustration for the site's readers. 
I've now uploaded around 20 images, for which copyright permission has been granted by Peabody. The copyrights for my most recent images are still in the process of being recorded by OTRS but in the meantime, I wanted to reach out here to see about placing one of the fully approved images in this article.
One of the images I've uploaded shows carbon capture technology, and I think it would be be a great addition for this article's "Technology" section:
*:File:Coal_Carbon_Capture_Technology.png  
My suggested caption is: "Carbon capture technology used at a coal mine in 2014." 
If anyone is watching this page, will you look into adding this image for me? Thanks for reviewing this request. Robert PEnergy (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any significant conflict of interest here and am wondering if images shouldn't be treated more like self-citation COIs, where the user is allowed to make the edits themselves, unless someone tells them not to. The proposed caption doesn't even include the company's name, which I would also find appropriate if it described the location this equipment is at or its manufacturer. Also, I'm still not clear what I'm looking at. A better caption might be something like "Two _______ devices, which are used in carbon capture..." However that is all very nit-picky. My suggestion would be to post at COIN asking if you can add all 20 images to relevant articles without asking for permission for each one individually. Presuming you use common sense, I imagine it should be fine.  CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology image for this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clean coal technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219221240/http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk:80/ccs to http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/ccs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026074817/http://www2.vattenfall.com:80/www/co2_en/co2_en/index.jsp to http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/index.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main article has been moved to coal pollution mitigation; I think it would be good to move this article to coal pollution mitigation technology or something similar. Thoughts?  and  commented there.
James F. (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. I don't know whether flue-gas desulfurization remains a separate topic. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have criticized the move to coal pollution mitigation because it was done without discussion. I think there should be a discussion about the proposed move of this article. Roberttherambler (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-title? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clean coal technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226020613/http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Climate/clim-2.cfm?&CFID=1255395&CFTOKEN=96369856 to http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Climate/clim-2.cfm?&CFID=1255395&CFTOKEN=96369856
*Added  tag to http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi
This page is very inaccurate, 'clean coal' is marketing and lobbying term created by the advertising agency R&R Partners in 2008 to combat potential carbon emission regulations by the US Federal government. The page currently appears to confuse the marketing term with carbon capture and sequestration and scrubbers technologies. I will work on a new version of this page and transfer relevant information to that page. It also appears this page has quite a lot of COI editing which should be monitored. 
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is really inaccurate 

message: Hello, 
I am currently working on a school research project and I am interested in expanding the section on "clean coal and the environment".  There are currently a few places that need to be cited, and the sentences that use the word "Supporters" make the section seem like it is showing a one-sided stance rather than explaining the opposing views.  If anyone has feedback or suggestions, I would appreciate it.
Thanks, 
P.E. Dantic (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean coal and the environment