Talk:Clean coal technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More sections needed[edit]

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)

Suggest Adding Sections:[edit]

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)

What is a "token amount"??[edit]

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)

Horrible Article[edit]

This is perhaps the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. It reads like a sophomoric term paper arguing against clean coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the article horribly biased or does the article reflect the fact that there is little to no supporting evidence for clean coal? It is funny that the article is constantly being visited and criticized by clean coal fanboys yet none of them produce any citations or evidence when asked. There are plenty of editors who regularly visit this article and attempt to keep it as neutral as possible. If the article has ample sourced and cited criticisms of the concept of clean coal, and no one is able to produce sourced and cited information of a supportive nature, that would indicate that the article is not biased, but that it reflects the current knowledge of the subject. So I will put the onus on you considering that you think the article is unbalanced. Find more credible sources that support clean coal so that as a team we can all edit this article and make it more accurate and reflect the current understanding of the topic. Nitack (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
After having reviewed all of the posts on this particular article, I must admonish CrimsonSage and other contrarians for their attempts to present an opposing view. You might as well tell a Muslim the Mohammed did not leap into heaven on his horse from a rock in Jerusalem or tell a Christian that Jesus did not rise from his tomb. The entire AGW argument has become a religion to those who believe, and can never be disputed by mere facts. Unfortunately, that religious body has overflowed over into a technical article on coal that is full of opinion, but bereft of fact.
Why would you admonish someone for having and expressing an opposing point of view? Are you saying this is a technical article? Because it isn't (please visit Wikipedia:Featured articles#Engineering and technology for examples of technical articles). Also, if you're going to admonish someone you should probably sign your comments. Charlesreid1 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC has, in its existence, been wrong in every projection of global warming they have made, normally by an order of magnitude. Worse, the only public discussions concerning IPCC findings are based on the politically biased management summary, which in itself is not supported by the underlying technical findings of the IPCC.

The invective being leveled at those who are attempting to modify the article into a reasonably unbiased presentation of facts is a reflection of the zealotry of those who wish to shove the AGW theory down everyones throats, at an enormous and unprecedented cost to the industrialized economies. FarNiente (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're trolling, and trolling against the interests of your entire species. It's a shameful display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but was that a factual rebuttal, a snappy repartee, a spirited rejoinder, or and ad hominem attack? As I previously stated, attacking the orthodoxy of a religion is a futile and pointless effort. All we can do, as technologists, is point out the errors often inherent in religious orthodoxies.
I don't mind you believing in AGW, I just don't want you to destroy the world in an effort to force others to accept your religion. Al Queda is doing a fine job of that all by themselves.FarNiente (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I suspect a reason that this article is considered POV on both sides, as well as being generally of poor quality, is that it is based on a term that is both an umbrella term and a public relations term. If there is any good content it should be shifted to various pages (e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage, Combined Cycle etc.), and this page should be replaced with a disambiguation page. It is bizarre to see 'support' and 'criticism' for a phrase that is so vague and has many different meanings. Most of this article is meaningless, and hardly counts as encyclopedic content. Woood (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur to a point here. I agree with your point re: the public relations term by and large - I'm not sure that it needs to be specifically in the opening paragraph, but it does need to be given appropriate weight. I'm not sure that the phrase is really that vague in terms of common parlance - it describes, essentially, a broad spectrum of technologies that are being developed and utilised to reduce discharged toxins produced in coal-fired electricity plants. The term is vague because it is broad and, whether we like it or not, it is the term that is most commonly used in public discussions about potential future coal plants.
I also agree that the article is in a pretty appalling state at the moment and in need of a major rewrite (which I am hoping to contribute to), but I think deletion is a bit defeatist. I think we should bear in mind that a lot of people will potentially use this article as a first port of call if they want to find out more about what somebody on TV has been referring to as 'clean coal'.
My two pence on the public relations term (as someone who works in public relations, although not for coal companies...), is that although NPOV's link details a zinger of a 'clean coal' PR campaign it still doesn't really show that 'clean coal' is a PR term per se, rather than just an emotionally charged term that is also used in PR campaigns. A such it still has a whiff of POV to me. That said, these concerns do need to be clearly addressed and the bits I wrote about them are currently rather buried in the third para. While I wouldn't decribe my initial rewrite as perfect by any stretch, the subsequent edits seem to be a little heavy-handed (if broadly well intentioned). SupernautRemix (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Good word, Woood. The descriptive "Clean" is too Clean and Dirty, Good and Bad. Some peoples' Dirty is Good, while some peoples' Clean is Bad. In that train, "Clean Coal" is an accurate description of the best practice in cleaning up the waste stream of coal, but it does not address the CO2 issue. From my point of view, which is that AGW is not proven or even indicated, the CO2 issue is a non-starter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarNiente (talkcontribs) 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
FarNiente - I see your points here (although I don't personally agree with your views on AGW). However... as a lot of the criticism of 'clean coal' refers to CO2 emissions, which have been identified as a major sticking point (correctly in my view or incorrectly in your view) due to alleged global warming/climate change issues the point of view needs to be detailed, no? It is still a major issue no matter how people might feel about it's accuracy. Perhaps the CO2 issues should be detailed in a seperate section from other pollutant issues? Maybe separating it out into something like 'conventional pollutants' and 'carbon emissions'? SupernautRemix (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of points of view on global warming, the purpose of clean coal technologies is to address these environmental concerns (be they real or imaginary). The article ends up using clean coal technology as a soapbox on which to discuss issues that aren't directly relevant. I think the focus of the article needs to change substantially, and include more information about actual technologies. Anything else belongs on the Clean coal page. Charlesreid1 (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I agree this article is a place where two opposing views are using disinformation through googeling political sources i.e. non-scientific to push their view. For example someone quoted a source that says scrubbers are used to remove particulate. Scubbers remove SO2, SO3, Hg(2+), etc to less than ppm levels ESPs are used to remove particulateJdavidab (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Umbrella term" vs. "Public relations" term[edit]

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)

Of the two sources used as references for "clean coal" being a public relations term, one [1] 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 [2] is a blog. Simesa (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Log one in for keeping both terms on the page. Although I understand that this term has been industry jargon since the 1970's or so, most people's exposure to it is as a public relations term used heavily over the past few years. This article needs to strike a balance of opposing views with factual information to back it up. Info needs citations, and then it has to be correctly presented. Take the line, "Currently, the fleet of coal fired electric generating plants burn 70% cleaner than they did in 1970." I'm happy to see that it is cited, or else I'd take it right out; there is no single definition of 'cleaner'. Going back to the source, I can see the qualifications made on this claim, and make them clear in the article.--Fbfree (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute[edit]

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)
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)
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)

Might I suggest that the problem with the article is not just its POV, but rather that it covers too much in a short article. The article would be much better if it only covered clean coal technology and move the other issues to references at the bottom of the article. This includes global warming, carbon capture, and other environmental issues that are not specific to the burning of coal. These extraneous issues only confuse things and seem to be the source of the unbalanced POV. Environmental issues should be discussed elsewhere. However, the article does not include sufficient information about pollution that results from burning coal and how various clean coal technologies would eliminate these. In short, the article should remove the opinions and other subjects, and replace them with facts about the burning of coal. Wikipedia articles should be about facts, not be opinion pieces. Tyrerj (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

The very language of this article is not befitting of a neutral point of view to the subject at hand. This ought to be obvious to anyone with a background in English equivalent to a high schooler. I found this article by searching for this topic on google and was so disgusted with the method of presentation, and childish antics of those defending this articles horrible use of language towards neutrality, that I felt compelled to come here and throw in my complaint. Have fun ruining wikipedia with your weighted language and then trying to pass it as scholarly material... And just for the record, I could not give a damn either way about this technology. I was merely curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead doesnot clearly summarize the scientific consensus, which is critical of "clean coal tech". Current lead is biased in favour of clean coal.Sum (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


"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)

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)
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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Very disappointing entry...[edit]

i got to this link from a very one-sided discussion at 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)

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)
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)
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. (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed links[edit]

I could not find this article:

This site closed:

Ikip (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


This article should be merged with Clean coal. The difference is not substantive, helpful, or indeed coherent Ashwinr (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Moved section to bottom to maintain chronological order)
I would be willing to go either direction for this article. The major problem is that this article is (or moreso, was) related to clean coal in general. The article should be restricted to describing the technologies involved in the production/use of clean coal. If the information available on this specific subject is small, then the content can be a section of the clean coal article. If there is a lot that can be discussed, then per WP:SIZE WP:SPINOUT WP:SS (take your pick) it is perfectly acceptable to to leave it a separate page.
I suspect most of the actual technologies related to clean coal are worthy of their own articles, and this this article (or subsection) would become a rather brief summary of the technologies, with appropriate wikilinks allowing the reader to learn more as desired. Thus, this article would be short, and appropriate as a subsection. of the parent article. -Verdatum (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed User:Verdatum, while the articles are not worthy of being separate as they stand, there is a very important distinction to be made. The Clean coal page is a place to explain/discuss what the term "clean coal" means (that being, ways of mitigating negative environmental effects of coal), whereas the Clean coal technology page is a place to discuss what specific technologies have been, or can be, used to mitigate these negative effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesreid1 (talkcontribs) 05:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


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)

Oh, and I think the $50 bn is very misleading if the context is CCS. Most of that cost will have gone on "conventional" emissions - particulates etc William M. Connolley (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs discussion of supercritical (IGCC) burning techniques[edit]

Needs discussion of supercritical burning techniques. Integrated gasification combined cycle

Ocdnctx (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Technology image for this article[edit]

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:

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)

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


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? JzG and Roberttherambler commented there.

James F. (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't know whether flue-gas desulfurization remains a separate topic. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
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)

Request for comment on proposed move[edit]

There is no consensus for the proposed move. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been suggested this article be moved from Clean coal technology to Coal pollution mitigation technology. Should this move take place? See also Talk:Coal pollution mitigation. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No move - Between the two, clean coal technology is more the WP:COMMONNAME.
(1) It is more frequent. A google count shows those words as 60% more commonly used (6.48M hits vs 4M), and as phrases it is even more so ("clean coal" 530K, "clean coal technology" 265K, "coal pollution" 69.6K , "coal pollution mitigation" 555, "coal pollution mitigation technology" only 8). Also, I particularly note the reference cites use the phrase "Clean coal".
(2) It has less uses that seem WP:OFFTOPIC. The phrasing makes technology to clean more narrow than mitigation. The mitigation seems interpretable applicable to post-event or alternative reactions, so a few of the google hits were instead about climate change mitigation doing things unrelated to cleaning emissions of coal, such as increasing the use of buses.
(3) Lack sufficient motivating reasons. The general preferences for status quo / stability, keeping things simple with the shorter name, and the WP:SURPRISE principle of least astonishment so if they type the 'clean coal' it leads to something of similar title says it titled 'Clean coal technology'.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No move - "clean coal technology" seems much clearer than "coal pollution mitigation technology". The shorter title is also simpler. The move seems unnecessary. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move - Seems like there's a clear WP:COMMONNAME argument here. Granted "Clean coal technology" isn't actually "Clean", but that is the name by which it's known. NickCT (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move, per WP:GLOBALIZE, \or better still, merge. Coal pollution mitigation technology dates back to the 19th Century and the term "clean coal" is predominantly US, and to a lesser extent Australian - some of the biggest efforts are in China and India, and their industry is not trying to greenwash the product, I see no evidence this term is used there. The fact that the Big Coal marketing team call it this does not require us to do their PR for them. We should use a more technically correct term reflecting the length of time people have been trying to fix the problems with coal. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite apart from anything else, "Clean coal technology" violates the "common name" guideline because it isn't one technology, it's half a dozen. "Coal pollution avoidance technologies" or something would be clearer, but I'm not entirely enthused by it. James F. (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I thikn mitigation is a more precise term than avoidance, I don't think it can be avoided, but that's just my view. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move/merge Firstly, "clean coal" is less precise and less general. It is not a question of whether coal is actually clean or dirty, as mentioned above; that is a matter of irrelevant semantics. The "clean coal" title describes only part of the topic; it is not just a common name for the same concept. There is more to dealing constructively with coal than just getting clean coal or getting coal clean, no matter what the popular misconceptions might be. Secondly, if we do move it would in every way be natural and reasonable to reatain the clean coal title in a redir, so that "clean coal" searches direct readers to a proper context, thereby reducing the confusion of users that wind up at a clean coal article and find that only parts of their concerns are discussed, or that find that their clean coal title includes a lot of stuff that they had not bargained for. Those that get redirected to "Coal pollution mitigation technology", or possibly a section inside that article, might be slightly surprised, but only if they had never realised that there was more to the matter than clean coal, and the principle of least surprise does not apply to every instance where a reader learns something that had not occurred to him before; that after all is part of the function of an encyclopaedia. It is a bigger and more harmful surprise to find that the chosen title did not match the content of the article. JonRichfield (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Undecided Per many convincing arguments above. I'm leaning towards Merge, but the "Clean Coal" moniker is so popular, that regardless of the fact it is a misnomer, I am thinking the article should stay. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely have a redirect and definitely reference it in the lede. But popularity? It's a PR term they have spent a fortune on pushing, but still a relatively new one. It's also very obviously inaccurate. Coal produces environmental damage from the mine to the smokestack. Habitat damage, health effects on miners, water pollution, pollution in transport, acid rain, radiation, CO2 - to say that burying the CO2 makes it "clean" is pretty silly. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. WP policy is to title an article by what its subject is commonly called, not by what it logically ought to be called. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not a policy. WP:NPOV is a policy, the MOS is only guidance. And in this case the term is only most common in the US, whereas much of the activity in the field is in China and India. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.