Talk:Clean coal technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within energy.
Comments:

Contents

[edit] Byproducts

What are the byproducts of this process ? It would be good to mention these. --Yendor72 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Some of the links attached to the article are worth reviewing. Particularly the reference to the Jacksonville, FL demonstration.

As for the statement about no coal plants have zero emissions, This is a crock, by definition, a process that converts material from one state to another has to have emissions. To claim the coal process has to have zero emissions in order to be successful is a smoke screen (pardon the pun) that reveals the bias of the author. Even the author has emissions, and I bet they are just as unpleasant as everyone else's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticdon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary example?

Could someone expand/explain the statement that "the primary example of clean coal is the proposed US FutureGen plant — a zero-emissions coal-fired power plant.". I'm not disputing this, but it would be nice to see some references, possibly (also) to other clean coal facilities/proposals around the world -- or statement that there are no others. —Sam Wilson (Australia) 10:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added an external link to SaskPower's clean coal project. I'm not sure what the best way to incorporate this information into the article itself would be. Hiddekel 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenwash

Maybe the paragraph calling clean coal 'greenwash' should be moved to the 'support and opposition' section, since it is the position of Greenpeace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.102.196.230 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

It is a position of many and greenpeace is cited as an example. I have added another reference to an article by the Australian of the Year, a recognised scientist and author. dinghy 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality, as I agree with the previous poster that 'greenwash' and citing Greenpeace is definitively one-sided. Kirstenverity 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was one sided when it only had references to industry articles. Now the article is more balanced as it has multiple points of view dinghy 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether citing Greenpeace is POV, the statement The concept of clean coal is largely "greenwash" is clearly false: the concept of clean coal is that coal can be burnt without causing too much pollution; this is not greenwash. The question is whether this concept can be turned into practice, and stating that it can, when in fact it cannot, is greenwash. (Do note that I do not say that it cannot be put into practice; I know nothing about the issue.) —Sam Wilson (Australia) 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement re the concept being greenwash has been changed to be clearer that it is the concept of clean coal as a solution to climate change which is greenwash. dinghy 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Clean coal, either as concept or statement, is not greenwashing. Clean coal technology is not only possible, it is affordable. -B8amack (Canada) 19:48, 10 April 2007
The entire process of "clean" coal is indeed non sustainable and only marginally better than regular fossil fuel combustion. Last I checked there is no definitive way to process or store pollutants, and there is no way to get around the fact that coal mining poses numerous environmental and public health hazards as well. --Howrealisreal 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The entire term is nonsensical fantasy. There is no such thing as "clean" coal; to even use the term is, indeed, greenwashing. To use a more accurate term might be "slightly cleaner coal", or "not-quite-as-horribly-polluting coal". Whether as a concept or a statement, it is utter nonsense, and definitely an attempt by the coal industry merely to repair PR damage which results from it being the most polluting of the commonly used power sources in the United States. XINOPH | TALK 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Clean" is a misleading term at best, and reflects the desperation of a dying industry. The current (and ever growing) importance of climate change necessitates real solutions, which clean coal is not. This can be seen from the current trend in investment towards renewable technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.131 (talk • contribs)

[edit] "clean" or not? just semantics

"clean coal" is just an expression, and whether or not you or anyone else considers it appropriate, has absolutely no impact on anything, other than your emotions. it refers to things that are more than a name, and i suggest it would be better to debate those, rather than trying to pin a label on it, be it 'clean coal', 'a complete fantasy', or whatever.

it seems plain enough that coal 'can never be clean' if by that you mean that it cant be used to produce electricity without any also producting pollutants. on the other hand, i am lead to believe that the most important goal currently is to reduce greenhouse gas emission. apparently, economics aside, 'clean coal' has the potential to extract most (all?) of the CO2 from the smokestack (so to speak), potentially allowing it to be buried indefinitely. while that may not be easy or cheap to achieve, and obviously something that cannot go on forever (not enough holes), it never the less could allow a major reduction in greenhouse gas emission while other more permanant solutions are developed. whether you are comfortable calling that 'clean', or not, is of no consequence. if that is what can be done, it is significant. so if it really bothers you, then think of some other expression and popularise it.

as for the expression being an invention of the coal industry, i note that, in australia at least, the Labor Party, including the very green Peter Garrett, seems comfortable using the expression, and has touted it one possible means by which Australia could achieve the Labor Party's stated goal of 60% reduction emissions, below 2000 levels, by 2050.

the larger context is this: you can generate power from either coal, or nuclear, power stations. a tiny contribution can be made from solar collectors, geothermal, wind etc. you are stuck with those two generator types for the foreseeable future whether you like it or not. anything that can be done to reduce the unwarranted by products of them is worth investigating and maybe pursuing, depending as ever on the balance of costs & benefits.

Alexanderstollznow 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • A point of note - there are other sources of power widely used in the world such as hydro-electricity, which provides most of the power to the 3 million+ residents of my province. Also, your note makes no mention of conservation or efficiency. My $0.02, Hu Gadarn 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the majority of the general public and engineering community appreciate that the word "clean" is subjective. As such it is an acceptable description of technologies that profess to generate electrical power from coal in a less polluting manner. If you read the articles it is possible to compare how much "cleaner" power generation can be when using these technologies.--Chris Dockree 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


The entire article should be edited to remove the word "clean" which is incredibly misleading. The US Supreme Court has ruled that all credible evidence confirms that carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant. In this case "clean" is misleading and the entire article should be changed to reflect that the coal has been "scrubbed" of extremely toxic substances, but is still a major source of pollution. Beyond that, the entire article reeks of coal and energy industry propaganda and needs a re-write. -- nitack 17:50, 10 August 2007 (EST)

Surely you're joking! The article darn sure needs a rewrite as it is one of the worst hatchet jobs I've seen, very strongly biased against the topic!
As to whether coal usage can someday be made "clean", by current standards for that term the answer is definitely Yes. The pollutants, including carbon dioxide, are all planned for capture and sequestration - you have a "clean" house, don't you, yet the garbage truck picks up from your place once a week. They aren't claiming "Green coal" or zero-waste coal, instead what they're claiming is quite reasonable.
Let me see what I can do with this monstrosity of an article. Simesa 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, now you've got an article Wikipedia might actually not be ashamed to show people. Simesa 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the wholesale changes, as they are too far sweeping. Please address them one at a time, or else someone may simply revert you again. You make some good points, and I believe you will achieve consensus on those, so let's walk through this. --Skyemoor 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we'll work on this by steps. Simesa 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Simesa, but there is no such thing as "clean" coal. Your bias is pretty evident, but misinformed. The pollutants that are scrubbed are still present, just in a different form. As for carbon capture, there is no viable method for carbon capture and no method ensures it is actually sequestered. It is not "clean". All credible scientific evidence supports that assertion. There have been a number of studies in favor of coal, however these have been almost entirely financed by energy companies on a "favorable results for pay" basis. Nitack15:55, 14 August 2007 (EST)

The article is also dominated by a POV generated from the United States as though thats' the final word on the debate. Such myopia is wrong."Clean" coal is a international debate. I also note the massive bias in the edits playing up to the coal mining industry. This article cannot be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.148.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming

This sentence is missing a "believed to be." Man Made Climate Change is still a theory, and is still under (highly politicised) discussion. Wikipedia should be free from bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.24.246 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is a theory until proven wrong, including evolution, the laws of physics, etc. The evidence overwhelmingly says that climate change, if not completely due to man, is largely contributed to by human activity. I think by stating that it is "one of the principal causes" we do justice to the doubt some people have. Nitack comment added by (Nitack) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, it is a theory so it should read, "The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is one of the principle causes of the theory of anthropogenic climate change." Putting global warming at the end is redundant.98.165.6.225 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics as Usual on Wiki: This is a very weak article. For starters there should be a reference to the DOE site that has a discussion of the Clean Coal Technology efforts currently underway. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/

  • I'm curious as to your definition of the word "politics". Do you mean "beliefs" or "thoughts"? Not clear from your terse sentence. PS - what is DOE? Some of us likely don't live in the country you do and may not be familiar with your local or national acronyms. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The United States Department of Energy. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that politics has raised its ugly head to obscure the potential for this technology and the progress being made to date.

Just think what the world could be like if China, India and other countries not covered by the Kyoto Accords were to implement clean coal technologies?

Those condemning this effort appear to have political motives. It is a shame, these folks are like the flat earth people. Mysticdon comment added by (Mysticdon) 19:37, 5 January, 2008 (UTC)

Those that promote the junk theory of global warming have political motives, international socialism to be exact.98.165.6.225 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction line wording

The line "This time frame is of concern to environmentalist because of their belief that there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to protect the world economy, according to the Stern report" appears in the introduction. It seems to be suggesting that the only reason all environmentalists care about reducing carbon emissions in a certain time frame is to protect the world economy. It should be clarified to either bring in the full range of concerns or, since that probably isn't possible, be changed to specify the group of environmentalists who think this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.73.117 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is interesting ... not once does it mention how critical energy is to worldwide growth, and how abundant coal is as a very effective source of that energy. It is more an article about environmentalists than it is about "clean coal" which - as mentioned by others and as listed in the article - is a manalgam of different things (gasification, sequestration, etc), but which does pose just as much of an opportunity as wind, solar, etc. Right now coal is one of our major sources of energy (something like 20%), and the US has coal reserves that rival those of China. The problem facing clean coal then is a different problem than renewables. Clean coal is an attempt to take an existing, abundant fuel source and make it sustainable, where other renewables are trying to take an insignificant but sustainable fuel source and make it significant. This page on clean coal was about the least impressive/informative wiki article I've ever seen. (76.173.74.126 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

  • Perhaps you might consider improving the article then? Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology?

The focus of the current article on the political and popularised nature of this matter has completely avoided the matter of delivering the efforts (and challenges) of the deployment of "clean coal" (or "coal fired power generaion with carbon capture and storage[1]) technologies. A suggestion to cover theory, research and current pilot projects aimed at delivering the recommended technologies often umbrellered by the term "Clean Coal." [2],[3]

 Additional Suggested Sections ??
 1. Post combustion CO2 capture technologies (include oxy-firing & retro-fit of conventional plant)[4]
 2. Pre-combustion CO2 capture (include integrated gasification combined cycle technology[5],[6]
 3. Geological storage of CO2[7], [8]

Is there general support for this approach? I feel this would add substance to the current topic and assist to inform the continuing political and public debate about the challenges that we will all face as climate change and our increasing energy needs are [hopefully] reconciled. Sprendo (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage article

This article is a disgrace to wikipedia. It is the most POV, badly written, piece of garbage in the entire wiki catalogue. It needs to be re written from the ground up. I Wake Up Screaming (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wake Up Screaming, you are entitled to your opinions, however you need to use the talk page before making the PoV changes that you have in this article. Removing quotations from notable individuals, specifically about this topic, because you do not agree, is not appropriate. please use the talk page prior to editing the article to fit your PoV. Nitack (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)