Talk:Coal pollution mitigation

Move proposal

I suggest we change the name of this page to 'Clean coal technology' as 'Clean coal' is misleading. (We can point 'Clean coal' to this page though). I also suggest a re-write of the first paragraph of the description to explain the evolution of clean coal technology from air quality improvement technologies in the 80s and 90s to today's advanced clean coal technologies. I could have a go at this as the external links basically summarise it very well, but it would be better for an expert on clean coal to write it. I am trying to contact one.

Billtubbs 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done - Kiran90 58.162.103.251 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (sorry, not signed in)

"Clean Coal" is worthy of its own page

I have reinstated and edited the page on Clean coal with ample links to the relevant pages for the various technologies.

Incidents such as the TVA coal ash spill make clear that even if CCS is successful coal mining and burning is not clean in the ordinary sense of the word.dinghy (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In reinstating this page we see a bit of a content fork. Part of the issue is that Clean Coal redirected to Clean coal technologies. Second, while this article was created (reinstate), the technology article continued to be an overview of the clean coal concept, creating redundancy issues. I've begun to reorganize things such that the technologies article discusses technological issues, and this article gives a broad overview.

(To individual who left above comment: can you sign your comments please?) Can you be more specific about the differences between the two? I don't see a need to create a separate article just to give a "broad overview" - that should be done anyway on the clean coal technology page. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Following the discussion on the Talk:Clean coal technology page, I now think that this page should give an overview of the kind of "average joe" view of what clean coal is, the politics of it, legislation related to it, etc., and the Clean coal technology page should focus on specific technologies intended to mitigate the negative environmental effects of coal. Charlesreid1 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Clean Coal" is a scam, and a fruad designed to rip off the worlds governmenments/taxpaypayers. They better spending their money on renewable technologies such wind, tidal, geothermal and solar such as from Dyesol Limited.

To quote myself from below, "These appear to be your opinions and rhetorical questions regarding clean coal. I do not see any suggestions for changing the article. Please use talkpages to discuss the article, not the topic." -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Adding section because there isn't one.

I made one edit to bring the lead paragraph closer to a neutral point of view. There's no need to use a double negative, "no specific quantitative limits on any emissions", and there's no reason to single out carbon dioxide, because it's included in "emissions". --Rfsmit (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Under Clean Coal and the environment, the links listed after "Further information" include Mountaintop removal mining and Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. I'll let others decide whether they should be included or removed. As they stand, the links set a confrontational tone. They should be given context rather than simply listed. --Rfsmit (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

Whenever I come across the 'clean coal' issue and they talk about compressing CO2, then send it through pipelines etc, I wonder which carbon footprints these activities have. We cannot discuss clean coal without the costs, both environmentally and financial. If that system were to be adopted and huge amounts are stored out of view, I would actually feel somewhat uneasy.

CO2 capture is, however, not the full cure. All other pollutants, especially mercury and dioxins, need to be removed as well. If the 'clean coal' initiatives do that, then this member of the public feels slightly misled by the one eyed focus on CO2. If it does not do it, why is climate change from CO2 worse than poisoning food producing land with mercury and dioxins?

At the end of the day, my preference would be one of the catalyst technologies which transform CO2 into other substances. The pipeline idea always reminds me of sweeping the dust under the carpet and when the carpet lifts we move house. I won't be here when the carpet lifts, but I take an interest nonetheless. 121.209.51.139 (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

These appear to be your opinions and rhetorical questions regarding clean coal. I do not see any suggestions for changing the article. Please use talkpages to discuss the article, not the topic. -Verdatum (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction of the Definition of Clean Coal. That Prior Terminology is Still Current.

Clean Coal isn't about CCS or reduction of carbon dioxide emission. Especially in regards to chemical engineering. Anyone who's had to review the literature will find that when papers talk about clean coal - its about reducing ash, water and sulfur in the feedstock or trying to knock down NOx, SOx, Mercury & particle emission. Reference to clean coal itself is the coal thats undergone treatment to remove the ash & sulfur content. This was still the case in papers written as recently as 2007 (e.g "A novel process for preparation of an ultra-clean superfine coal–oil slurry" Fuel, Volume 87, Issues 10-11, August 2008).

Hence, the article should talk about what Clean Coal really is (ultra low ash/sulfur coal), the methods/ideologies/research (which are widely varied) to get it, what its used for (e.g PCI, CWS/COS, gasification or coking/fuel in general), and what clean coal isn't/doesn't do (i.e completely negate co2 emission, end world hunger or provide world peace). Put in a section about how the term is used to describe CCS etc in media/government and link to that.

As for the earliest reference to clean coal, that was in 1922 "The Study of Mineral Matter in Coal" (R. LESSING), referring to the very early washing methods to remove ash & minerals, which we now refer to as washed coal.

I'm not going to comment on directly CCS & carbon dioxide, but CCS disccussion belongs at best in Clean Coal Technology. Its a separate issue to clean coal, and tends to ride along and overshadow the actual clean coal technology. The current reference list is a bit of joke. The bulk of it seems to be articles and blogs that push agendas and not facts. Not one peer reviewed journal article. Neither the Australian Coal Association nor Greenpeace are going to provide an unbias opinion, and are both going to omit important facts.

This article is far from neutral. Put up the facts, not the opinions of clean coal. Most importantly, leave to those that qualfied to talk about it - not people on a bandwagon. BloodMagus (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You sound qualified to interpret the technical details of the subject - so why not Wikipedia:be bold and add this information to the article? --Charlesreid1 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro / All about global warming?

To me, the intro seems more like it's making a case for global warming than it has anything to do with clean coal. Anton.hung (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Add The Atlantic magazine "Dirty Coal, Clean Future" December 2010 issue?

Dirty Coal, Clean Future: To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The good news is that new technologies are making this possible. China is now the leader in this area, the Google and Intel of the energy world. If we are serious about global warming, America needs to work with China to build a greener future on a foundation of coal. Otherwise, the clean-energy revolution will leave us behind, with grave costs for the world’s climate and our economy. by James Fallows 99.54.142.12 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Byproducts / Vague and Short

I think this section needs more information on the actual contents of coal based on the type of coal and the region from where it is mined. Not all coal is the same, nor equally dirty (although all is very dirty from a combustion standpoint). This section should also include information on complete vs. incomplete combustion with respect to byproducts and quantities released into the environment. This may be as simple as linking this article to articles about the combustion process of coal. Overall, I just think the byproducts section is an oversimplification and could be corrected by some article linking and a bit of additional information. Reznicma (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence claims things that are physically impossible

"Typically, clean coal is used by coal companies in reference to carbon capture and storage, which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and to plants using an Integrated gasification combined cycle which gasifies coal to reduce CO2 emissions."

Gasification can't reduce CO2 emissions unless it is taking carbon out of the fuel, which would make it less valuable as fuel. The article that the sentence refers to has no mention of this. The sentence should mention the removal of impurities, not reduction in CO2 emissions. Or, have I missed something?

Also, if sequestering carbon by injecting it into the ground is a necessary part of the new and improved Clean Coal, then it should be more fully described in the opening section rather than mentioned in passing and assumed to be an important outcome later in the article.

The article reads as if several definitions of Clean Coal are in use at the same time. It needs an informed person to edit it closely, unify the prose, and give it a good form, separating CCS from ash and emissions reduction. If I were grading it as student work it might get a C.

Avram Primack (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gasification reduces emissions by improving efficiency. The statement is correct, but unclear. (Btw, gasification means higher capital costs but lower fuel costs.)

"The article reads as if several definitions of Clean Coal are in use at the same time." This is indeed the case. I'll see what I can do to clarify it in coming weeks. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading claim that scrubbers don't reduce GHGs

The following, from the Criticism section, was misleading, and didn't clarify if anyone other than the person quoted believed it.

Also, scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases:

Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO₂ , Hg⁽²⁺⁾ , and SO₃ – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets.

— Cherise Burda, The Pembina Institute

I boldly removed it. If it's to be added back, the following should be taken into account:

• Scrubbers come in different kinds. An older emphasis in "clean coal" was on acid gases. More recently, carbon capture technology extracts the carbon dioxide.
• CO₂ scrubbers reduce CO₂ emissions, provided there is a place to store it (as in the Sleipner CCS project, among others). The claim above is only true in the most literal sense - i.e. they're not "reduced", only captured before being emitted to the atmosphere. Which of course is the whole point. I'm not sure what Cherise Burda was trying to say - perhaps she's unintentionally using weasel-words.
• Sources:
  • sources for the above quote: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/258871 & http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/1526
  • I found one similar statement by another critic, Keith Stewart of the World Wildlife Fund: “Scrubbers themselves take energy and use more coal,‘‘ Stewart said. “They do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It doesn‘t help with climate change.‘‘ - Canadian Press, found at http://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/231

Disclaimers: I'm working in knowledge management for carbon capture and storage, which is how I landed here. I'm not in PR, though - I'm just interested in seeing errors corrected. It doesn't help the cause of renewable energy to have misunderstandings like this taking root. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

UCG

Hello everyone. Suggesting we have UCG (Underground Coal Gasification) be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.21.77 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Projects

Hi there! I added some updated information on clean coal projects funded by the US government. Does anybody have information on projects outside of the United States that could be added? Hannahpayne (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Title

The title of this article is POV; the expression is used largely by U.S. politicians and agencies who promote continued reliance on coal as an energy source. Detractors claim that the term is misleading (for example, [1] [2]), because "clean" can be read to imply that coal can be extracted and used to generate energy with no byproducts whatsoever. Likely, this is a physical impossibility; certainly there are no technologies at present that allow this.

Moreover, the article looks like it's in a bit of a conceptual limbo. It says that "Clean coal" refers to technologies for reducing coal carbon emissions, but then there's already an article for that, Clean coal technologies -- which in turn claims that "Clean coal" is about the "concept" of clean coal. Very little of this article really talks about the "concept" of clean coal, instead describing coal-related emission reduction technologies and policies in the United States.

Considering the actual content of the article, I suggest renaming it to something neutral & more descriptive, such as "Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal in the United States". If there's anything to be said about the "concept" of "Clean coal" -- since the expression is politically loaded, perhaps about its use in the political discourse in U.S. and elsewhere -- it could have its own article. Otherwise "Clean coal" could redirect either here or to "Clean coal technologies", as before.

Thoughts? – Miranche ^T C 07:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Any numbers to compare?

Instead of filling this page with paragraphs emphasizing how little pollution this creates followed by a pile of more paragraphs emphasizing how much pollution this creates, shouldn't we try to find the numbers on how much pollution this creates? It'd be great to see graphs on this page. I don't want to find the sources, because I don't have a neutral point of view here, although it's mostly because I'm lazy. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)