Talk:Clean coal technology/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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 ) technologies. A suggestion to cover theory, research and current pilot projects aimed at delivering the recommended technologies often umbrellered by the term "Clean Coal.",  Additional Suggested Sections ??  1. Post combustion CO2 capture technologies (include oxy-firing & retro-fit of conventional plant)   2. Pre-combustion CO2 capture (include integrated gasification combined cycle technology ,   3. Geological storage of CO2 ,

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)

Freeman?
The phrase, "an insult to human intelligence", needs to be put in a sourced quote or removed. —WWoods (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"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)
 * One cannot only claim credible to be that which supports ones own view -- that's not how science works. This article is a smear against clean coal, plain and simple. Even a person biased against clean coal would see that.  Let's make it worthy instead of silly.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * "Clean Coal" and "Clean Coal Technology" are commonly enough used expressions to warrant usage by Wikipedia. This shouldn't be a topic for dispute. The term came up during the US presidential race, and was raised (and advocated) by every major candidate of all political parties. However, I just heard on the news that this entire term is a hoax being promoted by special interests - in order to reverse the decrease of coal production which was instituted many decades ago due to the extreme amount of pollution and other environmental problems that coal generates when it is used. Has anyone else come across a citation or recent new item that references the hoax? Thanks in advance. VictorC (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

This entire article is a terrible example of how the integrity of Wikipedia is undermined. Negative POV, and abusive edits.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * You seem to be a bit confused about the concept of "sustainable" energy. Coal is a fossil fuel taking thousands of years to be produced.  It can not be replenished at the same rate as we use it.  That is the very definition of an unsustainable resource.  Just because the mining industry thinks that calling a new method of coal clean makes true does not mean that is actually the case.  This article is as balanced as you can get concerning such a flawed concept. It presents the ideas behind the concept while still presenting the very real and accurate criticisms of the concept. Nitack (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, coal is a "supposed" fossil fuel. The very concept that such fuels are "fossil" based is just a weak theory which has been losing ground each and every year among scientists. This article is no where near balanced!  In your opinion it is a flawed concept; put it in the critisism section -- it does not belong in a neutral POV article.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show some reliable sources for that claim? If not, it is your opinion or Original research and has no place in Wikipedia.  If you can show some sort of academic or reputable source then we can certainly edit the article to reflect the changes in human understanding of coal.  Until then, coal remains a fossil fuel ;-).Nitack (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources which have made the case for both abiotic oil (which is rapidly gaining acceptance)and (more recently) abiotic coal. The theories of abiotic coal stem from certain processes of abiotic oil formation along with evidence of anomalies in the way carbon itself exists in the various coals. But, that's a secondary issue here and I don't want to make that a distraction; before we go there we have plenty more to do just to get the article anywhere near a neutral POV. Note, btw, that you are doing the exact thing that 'has no place in Wikipedia' -- you are adding your biased POV to the article.CrimsonSage (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on citations here. You can claim that coal is not a fossil fuel all you want and make statement about abiotic this and abiotic that, but unless you are actually going to cite reputable sources it will not substantiate any changes to the article.Nitack (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, I didn't make any claims of the sort. It would work in your favor to actually read what I've written, rather than just ignore it and think you know everything. As I noted above, the theory of abiotic oil/coal is a secondary issue here and I don't want to make it a distraction; before we go there we have PLENTY more to do just to get the article anywhere near a neutral POV. However, if you are personally interested in learning about it I can provide you some sources.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your the one that kept adding "supposed" in front of "fossil fuel" and then claimed that it is not a fossil fuel when called on it. Your exact words were "we should not exclude the fact that coal is only assumed to be a fossil fuel."  You say "assumed", and by adding "supposed" before fossil fuel, seems to indicate that you are trying to cast doubt on the fact that coal is a fossil fuel.  I'm repeatedly asking you to provide sources for what you want to change so that we can restore your good faith edits (perhaps rephrased so that there are no "words to avoid") but you seem quite hesitant to produce supporting evidence.  Should the editors who contribute to this article just take your word for it?Nitack (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the claim that coal isn't a fossil fuel. I said that coal is only assumed to be a fossil fuel, which is much different than claiming that it isn't. As I've mentioned repeatedly, let's get the rest of this article fixed first and then we can address this further.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree that this is a poorly done article. This is a hot topic issue, and it seems whoever wrote this is very anti-coal and anti-clean coal. I was very surprised when I saw a "Criticisms" section, because the entire article was a critique. How do you call Bias into question so that people know on the main page? Rocetmal (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately "clean coal" is a garbage concept. The article presents both sides of the issue with out being an industry fluff piece.  To obfuscate the glaring shortcomings in the concept would only serve to make this a propaganda page for the coal and power industries.  Find credible and objective sources that support the viability of the concept and we can work on re-writing the article as a community.  For now you only have industry insiders who have re-branded the same dirty old coal with the word "clean" in front of it.  Until they actually show it can be done it is just a marketing ploy that some have chosen to buy into hook, line and sinker.  Nitack (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs an almost complete rewrite. It violates nearly every Wikipedia policy with regards to POV. Certainly, it is one of the most biased articles in all of Wikipedia. An editor cannot hold a page hostage and revisions must be taken in good faith by the wikipedia policy. Undoing revisions is a violation of Wikipedia terms.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rampant adding of weasel wording in order to cast doubt because you don't agree with the people is in violation of the Wikipedia terms. WP:WEASEL Nitack (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not 'own' the article. As others have told you, Wikipedia supports a neutral POV. This article does not meet that, in fact, the whole article is a 'weasel article.' We can easily be explicit, and then you will lose all POV, as any negative statement will need to be moved to a critisism section.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read the article again, and as it is now it's pretty decent. Leans slightly toward the environmentalist side, but not really significantly.  Again, if you strongly disagree, the next step is WP:RfC (although we now seem to have a fair number of editors working on this).  Simesa (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Simesa (and I do appreciate your civil tone as compared to some on here), I really don't think it 'leans slightly,' I think it is greatly, greatly biased. It should be a neutral POV, but all the current editors, including yourself, cannot see that neutral POV becuase they are too used to seeing 'this' very biased view.  With that said, I don't think it reflects an 'environmentalist' view; I am an environmentalist and it certainly does not reflect my views - in fact, it's embarrasing. It may reflect a radical, delusional, extreme activist viewpoint like the people who torch SUVs and such. But, that kind of POV just makes for a garbage article. This article makes conjecture and assumptions that are anything but fact, and I think you have been listening to all this for so long that it's sucked you in as well.  Anthropogenic global warming has no credible evidence, as yet - it is put forth here as fact, and there are no arguments in this article to the contrary -- that is the very definition of POV. Anthopogenic global warming has now become a religion; something that is based on faith and bad faith at that. Since when do we posture as fact something with little to no evidence? It's bad, bad, bad.CrimsonSage (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It seams that the title would be more appropriate as "Clean Coal" rather than the "Clean coal technology" we now see. The article discusses the concept of clean coal and does not go into any detail about the "technology" involved. The concept is widely known by the name "Clean Coal" with out the added "technology" at the end. Perhaps a different article for the actually technology involved might be appropriate? Nitack (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree... Splette :) How's my driving? 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we go about getting that changed?Nitack (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In many cases, you just discuss it and click the move button next to the edit button. There is in this case, however, a non-trivial history at the target page left over from someone improperly moving the page from there to here back in 2006 (possibly this was before move functionality was implemented, I do not recall). This requires sysop buttons, so I left a request at Requested moves. Moving admin - here is the copy and here the paste; there are a couple edits futzing with redirects after/before those two edits, but essentially the article histories do not overlap. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Clean coal always only refers to clean coal technology. The coal itself is not cleaned, nor is it clean. As stated in the lead of the article, it refers to technology and methodology to remove pollutants from burning coal. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment coal has been "cleaned" for centuries, by creating "coke" in the coking process to use in blast furnaces, to create steel and pig iron. Most regular coal is too dirty for use in making steel. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting - that makes it all the more important to keep the name at clean coal technology, as the article is clearly not about that type of "cleaned coal". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Sure, coal is not clean. But the common name for the subject of this article is "clean coal". 87.112.19.175 (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose could refer to coke, low sulphur coal, or anthracite 70.55.89.214 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Nitack. Clean Coal is really an umbrella term for a set of technologies already discussed in Wikipedia (IGCC, carbon capture and storage, etc.), so I favor changing the title. Also, if the article is just about "technology", why include economics and pros/cons here? Simesa (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Economics are always important to any technology. It would be misleading to have an article named "clean coal", as that is not what the subject is about. As pointed out, anthracite would fall under the heading clean coal. "Clean coal" is at this point just a proposal - no one has done it yet, so that makes it doubly important to include economics and pros and cons. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It refers to the technology/process, not to the coal itself. -- Asterion talk 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flannery Misquoted?
I believe Tim Flannery may have been misquoted in the following line: The 2007 Australian of the Year, paleontologist and environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that "Coal can't be clean".[3] I looked at the referenced article which indeed has the title "Coal can't be clean - Flannery". However that quote is never presented in the article itself. Quite on the contrary, Flannery indicates that it is doubtful that co2 sequestering would work in Australia due to geological concerns, but that it would probably work in other places: "Globally there has got to be some areas where clean coal will work out, so I think there will always be a coal export industry (for Australia)," he said.

"Locally in Australia because of particular geological issues and because of the competition from cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives, I'm not 100 per cent sure clean coal is going to work out for our domestic market."

This statement is very different from "Coal can't be clean". This quote should be reviewed and changed to indicate what was actually quoted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeldebug (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we should not only correct the quote, but move the quote to the critisism section or just remove it altogether. One person's opinion should not be included in a NPOV article without quotes from the opposing opinion.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That Article does not at any point say "Coal can't be clean". Good catch.  Who would like to remove it or move it to another section?  He does present an interesting idea though that is missing in the article, the concept is not even a viable concept in every location because of geological concerns. Nitack (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just start by moving it to the critisism section - we can work on the exact quote later. Now, for the 'concept' itself not to be 'viable,' we would have to know all the technologies that could comprise the 'concept' which we most certainly do not. That would be akin to saying we can't get to the moon becuase we don't know about the rocket. We can say something to the effect that there are 'some concerns of viability in specific geographic locations given the current level of technology,' but only if we can identify those geological barriers and be VERY specific as to WHAT exactly those barriers are and WHY our current technology is not there yet.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Quote was moved by some one else, but was still incorrect, I went into the article and pulled a direct quote from him that is more representative of what he actually said. Nit Nitack (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV
This article is in disregard to the Wikipedia policy regarding neutral POV. An obvious and strong bias against clean coal does not mean that an editor can "own" the page.

Several good faith edits have been removed and accused of "weasel" words and such. I have noticed that other editors have faced similar "comments" from biased editors. In fact, this article is loaded with bias against clean coal and is nowhere near a neutral POV.

As per Wikipedia policy, article additions should be considered in good faith. This means that a strong impetus must exist to show that such edits were not conforming to Wikipedia policy or were simply incorrect.

First, clean coal is not just a "public relations" term. It is both a generic and industry term and is used all the time when discussing methods of using coal in a fashion that is considered environmentaly friendly. Certainly not all environmentalists are opposed to clean coal technologies and this article is biased to persuade people to believe such. In fact, it goes so far as to even quote an "environmentalists" opinion about "clean coal" and treat that as some sort of authority on the entire issue. The fact is, the technology is an ongoing source of research, and this article is about the technology -- politics of this technology and/or critiques should be in their own section.

Second, the article treats the UN study on "anthopogenic" global warming as "gospel." Anthopogenic global warming is not a universally accepted concept. In fact, it is regarded as ridiculous by many in the scientific community. Even the idea of global warming itself (man-made or not) has strong arguments on both sides. It is against Wikipedia policy to bias articles with political and/or ideological agendas -- they are supposed to retain neutral POV. There is no reason why there cannot be sections that describe the controversy, etc., similar to the support and critisism sections in the document. However, to include such biased and non-neutral information in the article introduction as if it is some sort of accepted fact is wrong. Wikipedia must fight against this to keep its integrity.

We need to insure a neutral POV and explain what clean coal is, period. And biases in the articles MUST be noted as such in their proper sections.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CrimsonSage, Your edits are adding weasel wording and are adding in your POV. You are also grossly uneducated on the subject and should not be making changes willy nilly just because you don't like what it says.  Your talk page is full of warnings for edit waring.  If you are not willing to talk about changes you want first we will just get the admins.
 * 1. Coal is not "supposedly" a fossil fuel as you keep entering into the article. Forget the fact that "supposedly" is pure weaselwording, by definition coal is a fossil fuel.  Have you read what a fossil fuel is?  Even the coal industry does not contend that coal is anything other than a fossil fuel.
 * 2. Adding in the word "claimed" in the following sentence. That is more weasel wording.
 * 3. Adding the wording "so-called" is more weasel wording. We sensing a theme here?  Did you even read " anthropogenic"?
 * 4. Removing "climate change and global warming" in order to bring ambiguity by changing it to "such issues" does nothing to help the article.
 * 5. Represents/misrepresents, I can see some bias in this wording, how about we change it to "presents"?
 * 6. "they claim" is more weasel wording. Beyond the weasel wording, the sentence is already structured so that it is clearly presenting their view point.  Your edit only serves to try and bias against them.
 * 7. "Who believe" more weasel wording to try to cast doubt based on your POV.
 * 8. Not even the coal industry claims that coal combustion is free of hazardous byproducts. This is the whole point of the effort to come up with "clean" coal.  Although you are right, that section needs some work, we should probably link to Black_lung_disease and Environmental_effects_of_coal


 * Your edits have added nothing to the article and only attempted to add weasel wording in at every spot you wanted to cast doubt on something you don't agree with. I have acknowledged the one spot you had a reasonable edit and will change it.  If you have a problem with any particular sentence or section LETS TALK ABOUT IT.  However if you persist in adding weasel wording and bias to the article we will just get an admin to take a look and see if your edit warring is harming the article.
 * Nitack (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nitack, first, don't be insulting here. I am quite educated on the subject and I can say with almost 100% certainty that I am far more educated on this than yourself. Now, I don't make changes 'willy nilly' and the reason that I made the changes is that the article is 'outrageously' biased from a position nowhere near a neutral POV. I have added no 'weasel words' as you put it; you are making that assessment becuase you don't like the neutral POV.  However, the article is full of actual weasel words and phrases that really do need to be removed. I'll cover your notes
 * 1. I am really not concerned if the 'coal industry' currently says it is a fossil fuel or not. Although this is not the major point of contention (although it is certainly one point of contention), we should not exclude the fact that coal is only assumed to be a fossil fuel. As a scientist, I can tell you that the theory of coal being a fossil fuel has been slowly but gradually weakening, and the theory of oil being a fossil fuel (save some amazing new proof) is almost dead. Part of the impetus that coal may in fact have both biotic and abiotic origins is in part due to the rapidly growing acceptance of this abiotic origin of oil; along with evidence from cell carbonization of certain plant material that does not support carbon either sequestered from the atmosphere or native to the plant itself.
 * 2. "Claimed" is the correct, neutral POV word here. There is nothing weasel about that. It is not a fact, and it is claimed by some.
 * 3. The term "so-called" is used in the standard fashion as is specifically the case with terms coined terms such as this. There is nothing odd here nor 'weasel' about it.
 * 4. Removing the additional and redundant climate change and global warming does in fact help the article. First, specifically repeating these terms simply to underscore a non-neutral POV damages the integrity of the article. Moreover, there are other, more important environmental issues with regards to the advantages of clean coal technology -- more important than the generally junk science regarding so-called anthopogenic climate change.
 * 5. Honestly, can you only see 'some bias' in the term 'misrepresents'? It doesn't get much more biased that that.
 * 6. Are you talking about the Greanpeace claims here? In the article the existing POV is not at all neutral; it takes the POV that Greenpeace is somehow correct about the assertion of 'moving the pollution', etc. They may indeed make that 'claim,' but it's a claim. That is NOT a weasel word, that is simply accuracy. A weasel word/phrase is the one now (back) in the article, which tries to make the reader believe that their claim is 'truth,' which it is not.
 * 7. The term "who believe" is again accurate and a very neutral POV. To state these assertions as universally accepted fact is not true, it's a biased POV, and nowhere near a neutral POV.
 * 8. Even your statement '...Not even the coal industry claims that coal combustion is free of hazardous byproducts.' is unbelievably full of bias. They would likely be the first ones to note that coal may be hazardous and have the best handle on what those hazards might be.  The article makes claims that hazards 'will exist' irrespective of the methods, which simply cannot be predicted given the advances in technology. Thus, this article cannot make those claims.
 * Ultimately, this article is ridiculously biased. It simply tries to make the claim that clean coal cannot be clean, without taking a neutral perspective whatsoever. It is a propaganda article with little-to-no factual basis, and technically goes way beyond Wikipeidia guidlines for neutral POV.
 * Please note that 'you' are the one edit warring and I'll explain why (and the admins will tell you the same thing). My additions were made in good faith and were reasonable additions to the article that restored a relatively neutral POV. In actuality, the article remained WAY biased against clean coal technolgy. I made some fairly minimal edits just on the negative POV that were beyond over-the-top biases. You REVERTED my edits. That's generally a no-no. Instead, you should have worked with the language in the article. You see, you don't 'own' the article. I am free to change it as I see fit, as are others, and you are supposed to take those changes in good faith - not revert them.  They don't need to clear it with 'you.'  Several others have been the victim of you doing the same thing to them, and you'll need to stop becuase that's the very thing that hurts Wikipedia's integrity.
 * Now, I am going out of my way here to work with you, but I am just as happy to bring in the admins. If we do that, I can assure you that this article will lose all of your negative biases.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to read the WP:Weasel article dude. It speaks exactly to the kind of words you are trying to introduce.  Those same words that I quoted from above are all mentioned in the WP:Words_to_avoid article specifically for the exact reasons I am citing.

Claim By itself, the word "claim" does not carry POV. However, it has a high potential for abuse because it can often suggest or imply that a speaker is not being truthful. In general, it is best to avoid using "claim" to describe a statement from a person about his or her own mindset. Since it is impossible to get inside the person's head and know what he or she is thinking, and therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove such a statement, editors may resort to using "claim" as a way to encourage readers to doubt the speaker's sincerity. In general, do not juxtapose a statement of objective fact with a person's subjective "claim" regarding that fact. So-called, soi-disant, supposed, purported, alleged These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who is doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.
 * You may be the most intelligent person to ever edit this article, but you are not following the Wikipedia guidelines. You have tried to introduce Original Research, Weasel Wording, and engaged in edit warring.  I don't care if you are a geological chemist who works with coal all the live long day, you need to cite your sources for wild claims, such as that coal is not a fossil fuel, and you need to leave out weasel wording.  If you can find reliable sources for any of your claims, then we can edit, but otherwise your opinions and you just knowing is not enough.  I have a clear view on the topic, but I value a truly objective article more.  I have edited out obvious biased from the greenies and I will continue to remove your weasel wording and unverified claims.Nitack (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The term 'claim,' in this context, is used well within Wikipedia guidlines - it is not being juxtaposed with a statement of objective fact, rather, it is being used exactly as it should be. We can be more explicit in the article, if you'd like, but I don't think you'll like it, becuase it will remove all of your POV biases. And, the same goes for 'so-called.'  By the way, as far as that term is concerned - yes, we do use it all the time to connotate that a concept is not well entrentched or objectively factual, but that's exactly true in this case, so the term is correctly used.  But like I said before, we can be quite explicit here as well.  Now, I would argue that you are obviously introducing weasel wording, edit warring and such. And, as far as original reseach goes, I have NOT done that, but you have that through your flawed and biased view of the subject matter. I have made zero 'wild' claims, and have not even stated my position on whether I 'personally' think coal as a fossil fuel or not.  I am talking about the current scientific thinking and trends from that perspective. But, I will say that your biased POV and opinions have absolutely no place in this article.  And, I will continue to remove such biases and correct statements towards the facts and a neutral POV as appropriate.CrimsonSage (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at CrimsonSage's revisions and almost reverted them myself. The article does somewhat lean towards the environmentalist viewpoint, but it's all well-cited and it does seem to be a fairly balanced presentation. CrimsonSage's edits OTOH were clearly POV. The article is better this way; if someone wants to continue to object, the WP:RfC route seems appropriate. Simesa (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I did revert CrimsonSage's revisions when he undid the revert from Nitack. There are faults in this article but this group of edits do look like clear POV.--Another-sailor (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded; or thirded, after e/c. NPOV is actually a pretty well-written policy. It indicates that we must neither trash nor laud any subject; it does not, however, say that we should give equal validity to fringe theories. There are plenty of legitimate arguments against the concept or practice of clean coal without bringing in global warming denialism or the existence of fossil fuels. At the very least, the style guidelines Weasel words and Words to avoid should be respected. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is NUTS! You three above are telling me that the neutral POV edits that I added are somehow not neutral(?) and that this article(as is) is fairly well-balanced?! This is like the twilight zone. This article is NOWHERE NEAR a neutral POV, period and is actually quite apalling. Using the terms 'claim' and 'who believe' is NOT adding any biased POV in this context, because it is not applied to an objective fact. In fact, just the opposite is true! Saying that the negative claims made in this article are 'objective fact' is a radically biased POV. You guys are saying that a Wikipedia article can present, as objective fact, activist and Greenpeace opinions and the concept of anthopogenic global warming!? And specifically to Eldereft, 'global warming denialism?' is this like 'world is flat denialism?' or 'earth is center of the universe denialism?'  Anthopogenic global warming has become a 'religion' by those who don't understand 'science.'  This article is claiming that global warming is 'fact,' and moreover that the concept of 'anthopogenic global warming' is also 'fact.'  Anthopogenic global warming has little-to-no credible evidence whatsoever. That aside, I agree that we should NOT give equal validity to fringe theories. IF you looked at my edits you would see that my actual edits did not make such claims. WE NEED TO SEPARATE OBJECTIVE FACT FROM OPINIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED AS OBJECTIVE FACT!! This article does NOT do that. And Eldereft, if you read ANY of my discussion postings, you would find that the idea of abiotic oil/coal is something that I did 'NOT' want it to become a distraction here with reagards to NPOV; there is FAR, FAR much more that needs to be done here and abiotic oil is a completely secondary concept which has little bearing on the problems with this article. BUT, FYI, the concept of abiotic oil is rapidly becoming the accpeted theory in the scientific community, and has led to the more recent theories (of which are unproven) of abiotic coal.  Whether the latter will turn out to be correct is too early to tell, but again that is NOT the critical aspect of this discussion.  What IS critical is that this article wrongly presents, as objective fact, opinions from activists and extremists without expressly noting that these are NOT objective facts but mere opinions and viewpoints. This article has been hijacked by a group of activists who would rather behave along a dogmatic agenda then 'actually' better the world and/or learn something; this type of behavior is becoming one of the largest problems in our society and you're feeding right into it.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to re-read what you tried to put into the article Crimson. Your edits were pretty systematically picked apart and the ways in which it violated the Wikipedia guidelines were referenced.  You keep making claims that are not sourced.  Everything you object to in this article has been correctly sourced and cited.  It says that greenpeace has objected for what ever reason, and you want to put a "supposedly", "supposed", "claimed", or "so-called" in front of everything that you don't agree with.  You also refuse to substantiate anything you want changed with sources or actual Wikipedia guidelines.  You keep citing NPOV, but you seem to be confusing YOUR point of view with the NEUTRAL point of view.  Another Wikipedia policy is that disagreements be discussed and consensus reached by editors.  The consensus seems to be that your edits are incorrect.  Your recourse is to request admin attention, but I don't think you will find them any more receptive to the adding of "so-called", "purported", "believed", or "supposed" in front of everything you disagree with.Nitack (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree with you. As I've stated several times now (but you don't pay attention) I haven't made any 'claims.'  Second, it is patently FALSE that everything I object to in the article has been correctly sourced and cited becuase what I am objecting to is the non-neutral POV, which cannot be sourced nor cited. I have not refused anything with regards to substantiation, and the one thing requested is not pertinent to this discussion.  I'll say it again, you do not 'own' the article.  No one needs to clear anything through you, which you seem to think they do.  Yet, constant refusal to contribute in a non-POV fashion is the bane of Wikipedia and what is causing it to be a joke.  I have read the comments of three(3) people, and you can review my reply above.  It is you and your 'friends' disagreeing with something that is causing the non-neutral POV, not my earlier edits. No matter, I am going to address each part of the article step by step.CrimsonSage (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all my "friends", even though if you had read this page you would see that Simese and I have repeatedly battled it out on this page. Now that multiple people have disagreed with you it has to be a conspiracy...Nitack (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are insulting. Don't be stupid. You know what you tried to do with this article. It's obvious that you're not at all interested in making the article better or learning something - you are only interested in discrediting clean coal. To be clear, when I said 'You and your friends...' I'm not specifically referring to the three(3) people who commented on my edits. I'm referring to those people who, like you, want to push a particular POV in deference to the facts.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again... waiting on sources and citations, conspiracy theories do nothing to help this article. I suppose I am part of some vast green wing conspiracy =D Nitack (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only one expounding conspiricy theories is you.CrimsonSage (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

FutureGen
I have added the FutureGen plant into the article under its own section. It was mentioned already, but this is the first real commercial test (in the US) if the concept is viable and deserved some focus in the article. Now it needs to be refined. Any volunteers? Nitack (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did anyone notice that the FutureGen article says that the key features are now intended to be placed directly into operating plants, without a "pilot plant" (which FutureGen was intended to be)? It looks like Clean Coal is still very much alive. Simesa (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support by both US presidential candidates
Is it worth noting that both remaining US presidential candidates cum senators support clean coal (Obama -, ; McCain - )? I would dearly love to leave this article out of the current political unpleasantness (and a little globalize would not hurt), but such high-level unanimity could be deemed relevant. On the other hand, the sociopolitical perceptions and ramifications are only tangentially relevant to technology. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some question about this. Even FactCheck.org doesn't seem to have it exact. The issue is the same as with this article: just exactly what is clean coal technology? Specifically, does clean coal include "carbon capture and storage". If so, then Obama supports clean coal and McCain's add is wrong.  OTOH, if the correct definition does not includ "carbon capture and storage" then Obama does not support clean coal. Common usage has been that clean coal is about new ways to burn coal that avoid the serious pollution that normally results from burning coal. The most advanced of these is IGCC. It does not include the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions Tyrerj (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean Coal is not just a 'Public Relations' Term
The term clean coal is not just a 'public relations' term. This is highly misleading and is a way of injecting POV. The term clean coal is a catch-all term that is used to indicate existing, planned, and/or theoretical concepts and/or technologies that employ the use of coal as a power source while reducing or eliminating various byproducts of its use, some of which may be harmful. This article needs to be changed to reflect that. Simply removing the words 'public relations' would suffice.CrimsonSage (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NETL uses it, which is good enough for me. Someone else already fixed it. Thank you, CrimsonSage, for discussing specific proposals here. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE: It is a public relations term deployed by neutrally documented public relations campaigns. The fact that single examples of the term can be observed on the Department of Energy's website does not negate its neutral documentation as a public relations construction, especially when the use of public relations services by government agencies themselves has resulted in well-documented controversies (e.g. The Department of Homeland Security press conferences).

Furthermore, "clean" is a qualitative peacock term that is dubious under Wikipedia's own policies. Any article on "clean coal" must therefore meet a burden of proof to explain the unusal phenomenon of a peacock word being part of a Wikipedia article. The fact that it is part of a neutrally-documented public relations campaign meets this burden of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.192.245 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthopogenic climate change is not proven; IPCC has not 'shown' anything
In the article introduction, there is a sentence that reads...

"The burning of coal, a fossil fuel, has been shown to be one of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change and global warming, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.)"

This is a serious violation of non-neutral POV.


 * 1) EVEN if the wording is changed, this should probably be in a different section entirely, such as a 'background' or 'motivation' section, but not in the introduction.
 * 2) The IPCC has not 'shown' anything. They have put forth a 'claim' and a 'theory.'  To 'show' something, as indicated in the statement above, means that they have demonstrated such as fact, which couldn't be further from the truth. The proper terms here are 'claimed' (regardless of the supposed 'weasel' status). Also acceptable is 'argued.' But the term 'shown' is a non-neutral POV and unacceptable.
 * 3) The statement is structured with a non-neutral POV. It also elevates the UN to the 'authority' on the matter.  Neither are true nor acceptable. The above statment (regardless of the actual truth or accuracy of the content), must be re-structured to something like...


 * 'According to a study done by the UN IPCC, the burning of coal is argued to be one of the principle causes of....'


 * You see the difference in POV; now that truth it is an opinion of a particular group is clearer. BUT, it's still NOT neutral, and still has a POV that is against clean coal technology. However, by writing it the way it is originally written, the reader is led to believe that the burning of coal IS contributing to climate change - but that is NOT a fact, NOT a neutral POV, and a concept that many scientists consider completely absurd.


 * 4) This statement (regardless of sentence structure) assumes, without explanation, that the theory/concept of 'anthopogenic climate change' is also fact, which it most certainly is not. In fact, it is not even good science and does not even have historical pedigree.  It should read the 'so-called' theory of 'anthopogenic climate change.'  This is typical as to how we refer to a theory that is not borne out yet.  However, NOBODY seemed to like that becuase it is a 'weasel' word (which is bunk). But, it now postures a POV that 'anthropogenic climate change' is a fact, but it's not.


 * 5) The causes for global warming, if such indeed exists, are very far from understood. To claim that we can make the assesment that global warming is real and then go even further and claim that, not only is it real, but that the burning of coal or the byproducts released by the buring of coal somehow contribute to this yet unproven theory that we know very, very little about is way beyond any reasonable neutral POV; it's completely outrageous. It means that we are claiming to know far more than we do at this point and claim, as fact, things that are obviously not fact.  This is a dangerous and societally irresponsible act. If we encourage this type of behavior, of sticking to a some view because of political or other non-related reasons, we are ignoring what could be a very serious problem with global warming and climate change because we'll be missing the genuine cause.

I propose something like this which is a neutral POV... 'Anthopogenic climate change comprises a set of controversial theories which postulate that climate change is influenced by human activities. Recently, this has been popularly associated with the more controversial theory of 'anthopogenic global warming' which is less accepted. According to a study done by the UN IPCC, the burning of coal is argued to be one of the principle causes of such anthopogenic climate change and global warming. As the underlying theories themselves have never been proven, this is a widely debated study.'

CrimsonSage (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesus christ. I could expect that sentence out of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the term "weasel words", but to propose that as a NPOV sentence must require a level of self-deception and hypocrisy that is just unfathomable. You, sir, have an agenda. Salvar (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to debate anthropogenic climate change, that's in Global warming controversy. The sentence as given is correct, the IPCC did say that and they are generally recognized as the expert body.  Simesa (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I second Salvar and Simesa's notions. The sentence already clearly states that it is the determination of the IPCC.  They are the expert body and your weasel wordery has reached new levels of ridiculousness in that sentence.  If you wish to change that sentence please, asking once again, provide some actual sources and citations to justify the change.  Your proposed rewrite is quite frankly rubbish.  It is one entire compilation of weasel wording that has no purpose but to try to cast doubt on every aspect of who the IPCC is and what they have determined.Nitack (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is absoluetly crazy. You guys are completely self-delusional when it comes to what NPOV actually is. To Salvar directly, I have no agenda - there is no hypocricy and I am completely aware of what I've written.  In fact, I've explained exactly why my statement is NPOV in my above comment. Its obvious that, to at least the few of you commenting here, that you are unsatisfied unless there is a strong POV that against clean coal; you guys will not be satisfied with an actual NPOV.  I'll repeat it again, everything in my statement is factually acturate and has a neutral POV.  But, the statement currently in the article is completey biased and has a a very strong negative POV.  To Simesa, this means, that in this article, you are going to allow the inclusion of a non-neutral POV that advocates the ridiculous and non-scientific concept of anthopogenic global warming as fact?? Right from the very start, that is already NOT a neutral POV.  As this article is not about that topic, how can we choose a POV here that is inconsistent with the ensuing scientific debate?! The IPCC is a NON-neutral political body of a very dubious nature.  I gauruntee that if I were to bring either direct sources or experts here who disagreed, you guys would STILL not want to allow them becuase you would AGAIN claim a non-netural POV, etc.  And Nitack, I'm tired of your insults - you're being idiotic, and you and I both know that you're trying to push your agenda with your friends.  My rewrite is fine, it is NPOV, it is factual, and I've explained the entire basis for each part in the above comment.  All of you are failing to see the strongly negative POV of the original wording and the immense bias it has.  So, when confronted with a true NPOV, you can only see your view and don't like the fact that it's actually neutral, just becuase it doesn't support your biased viewpoint.  This entire article is a 'weasel article' which tries to cast doubt on clean coal, tries to posture anthopogenic global warming as fact, and takes shots at the coal industry while lauding activists and groups like greenpeace.  It's complete garbage, it's not NEUTRAL, and the most active editors are so far lodged in their current way of thinking that they argue any statements that are balanced have a POV because they don't agree with them.  Talk about self-deception, you guys are the poster children for it. Someday, if you ever open your minds, you might actually read my reasoning above and understand it.CrimsonSage (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay. Hold it right there. As I see it there are two possibilities. The first is that you have an agenda to oppose the concept of global warming, motivated by I-don't-know-what (could be a payroll, could be a genuine belief in the "liberal media conspiracy"), and this agenda is driving you to make the most blatantly obvious falsehoods with absolute certainty, in the assumption that as long as you keep saying you're right, you can never be wrong. In such a case I would support you being banned from Wikipedia. The second case is that you honestly believe the words that are coming out of your mouth. The second case is, as I said before, unfathomable. It's almost impossible to believe that your continued reliance on personal attacks whenever you are asked for any sources is not deliberate. But for a moment I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because it's the only option that could possibly lead to your becoming a productive member of Wikipedia. But for that to happen, you need to do one thing. Pause, take a deep breath, and briefly open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong. Recognize that this is always a possibility, and it's good advice for anyone, and advice which I use frequently. Now, keeping that in mind, read your last post. Every single word in that post is describing your behavior. That's the key bit of information here. You are using weasel words. You are biased. You are opposing the article's content simply because you don't agree with it. In fact, the ways in which your criticism applies to your behavior are so numerous that it's very hard to believe you're not doing it deliberately. So that's what I have to say. Please consider it. On that note... I think there's a third possibility. You could be a troll, who derives entertainment from stirring up controversy. Such perplexing behavior would make sense in this light, because causing genuine confusion would only increase the humor of the situation.
 * That was my main message, but just in case it would help, I'd like to explain to you just what the meaning of "weasel words" is. The help pages are very clear, but maybe I can summarize it in just a few sentences for you. You maintain that your edits are good because they are "factual", and "neutral". This might be technically correct, but that's not enough. The human mind does not operate on the basis of logic. For this reason, it is possible to have a "factual" article which conveys information that is not factual. This is because of errors made by the brain of the reader, while processing the sentence. This doesn't, however, mean that the writer of the article is not responsible for this. These errors come in many well-known forms, and it's Wikipedia policy to guard against them, in order to produce articles which are not only "factual" in a technical sense, but which convey factual information and ideas to the readers. I hope I was clear in my explanation--further information can be found at Avoid weasel words. Salvar (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-read my posts. All of them, actually. I respectfully disagree with you and what you've said, and I doubt you will actually follow your own advice -- but please do so, go ahead and consider the possibility that you're wrong.  The fact is, this article is demonstrating a strong, biased, and non-neutral POV. You can argue the opposing view all you wan't, but just saying it doesn't make you right. Salvar, can't you see that you are actually doing exactly what you claim I am doing? Which in fact, I am not. If you'll recall, 'you' initiated personal attacks by calling me "self-deceptive" accusing me of "hypocricy," etc., comments which are simply assinine. This article is, quite simply, a biased piece of propaganda that postures and supports an extremist viewpoint.  As far as the 'weasel' information, you have made 'MY' point here regarding the vast majority of this aritcle. Please read my section below on examples of opposing viewpoints with NPOV.CrimsonSage (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Non Neutral POV with Regards to CO2
the statement:

"... fuels easier to pump out of the ground will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies which would have to be burned off during the refining process, thus adding to global warming.[5]"

along with the preceeding comments in the article, indicate that CO2 adds to global warming and state this as fact. There is no evidence that such is the case, and it is being presented here as fact. I suggest, at the very, very minimum, removing the 'weasel' phrase that postures to state the CO2 generated from coal contributes to global warming. The phrase would read:

"... fuels easier to pump out of the ground will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies which would have to be burned off during the refining process."CrimsonSage (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is actually not an example of weasel words. I believe that it has been adequately proven that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming, but whether that is a fact or not, it's not a "weasel phrase". It's just a piece of information presented as fact.Salvar (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. It's a peice of information which is NOT fact, presented as fact.  That is exactly a 'weasel phrase.' It is done this way specifically to posture a particular, non-neutral viewpoint which is not objective fact, and cast doubt on the opposing view.  It is not NPOV.  Now, you personally may 'believe' that it has been 'adequately proven' that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming, but this is anything but true and is just your personal opinion and a particular POV.  However, such is not science, such is not a fact, and it has not been shown, nor demonstrated, nor anything else that would remotely convince any reasonable scientist to believe this; in fact, several studies have demonstrated that anthopogenic CO2 is negligible towards greenhouse gas driven geological warming. And yes, I can site references if so desired, but I think we all know that these theories are the subjects of a great debate and in no way accepted science.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can say that you are flat wrong in this statement: "It's a peice of information which is NOT fact, presented as fact. That is exactly a 'weasel phrase.'" You misunderstand the term. I very carefully explained the term above, and Wikipedia has a page about it which is quite clear. Now, as for your references: cite them. I won't say anything more, so you'll have no ammo to change the subject. I call--show your cards. Salvar (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008(UTC)
 * You're wrong again. That is the very intent of a 'weasel phrase' as I've clearly explained earlier and as is used in this context. As you stated - 'For this reason, it is possible to have a "factual" article which conveys information that is not factual.' That's right, and that's exactly what numerous sections in this article are doing. In any case, I'm gathering some references so hold on.CrimsonSage (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said was exactly the opposite. Not a flat lie, but rather a technically factual sentence which conveys a meaning that's entirely different. The sentence you pointed out was a "lie" (as you say) being flatly stated as fact. A direct contradiction, not a "weasely" misleading statement. Do you see what I mean? Salvar (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Crimson Please for the love of something read wp:weasel. You are continually displaying a complete lack of understanding of what the actual definition of a weasel word.  I would also encourage you to read WP:NPOV which you are not correctly understanding either.Nitack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

An example of an opposing, yet valid and generally neutral POV
The article contains the following sentence:

"Sequestration technology has yet to be used on such a large scale and it may not be safe or even successful, may lead to unexpected geological instability, or may contaminate groundwater supplies"

Now, if I were to argue the way that people have been arguing with me (such as the ridicoulous comments made earlier (specifically by Salvar and Nitack), I would say that this statement is obviously a completely NON neutral POV. Why? Becuase it "intends to cast doubt" on sequestration technology, thereby showing a clear POV.

So, if I were to make a similar POV statement such as:

"The current theories of 'anthropogenic global warming' may be completely erroneous; to date, no credible evidence has been shown and the theories may in fact be completely wrong."

Then is my statement NPOV? YES, it is NPOV. In fact, BOTH statements are NPOV. Why is that? Becuase both statements state fact. In the case of the statement regarding 'sequestration technology,' to date no very large scale use has been done, it may turn out not to be safe or successful, and may lead to geological instability or may contaminate groundwater. The statement reaches (far more than my anthopogenic example), but most of that is still fairly OK.

My point here is that if I had written the statement regarding 'anthopogenic global warming', everyone would have jumped on it as haveing a non-neutral POV, when in fact, both of these statements are written in the exact same tone, and both are actually NPOV.

You people need to think about what you're doing/saying and get outside of your conditioning.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But this article doesn't say that anthropogenic global warming is happening - it says that the Stern report and the IPCC say it's happening, and it does so because they represent what is pretty much the scientific consensus. Perhaps we might reference Global warming controversy somewhere, but that's as far as it's reasonable to go. Simesa (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simesa, that's not true. This article does stongly indicate that anthopogenic global warming is happening based on the way the information is presented. It assumes such is the case all throughout the article.  Again, and with all due respect, I don't agree that 'that's as far as it's reasonable to go.'  Certainly we should absolutely mention that the theory of anthopogenic global warming is the subject of intense debate, and link to the controversy as you suggest. But, the rest of the article should NOT purport that such theories are fact. Honestly, there are far more important aspects of clean coal than the CO2 aspect, of which is just a hand-hold for the anthopogenic global warming people.  Wouldn't you agree that this article will be better when it is actually NPOV? We should talk straight facts. By this example I've give I hope you understand how I have been looking at this from a completely objectively perspective and neutral POV.  Right now, this whole atricle is a big propaganda piece, and that's wrong.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Technologies
In a discussion that is actually about making this article better, do we have enough fodder for an actual section on the proposed technologies? Nitack (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bueller... Bueller... Can we actually have sections in the article for things like IGCC, etc. The "technologies" that people are arguing are part of this article.Nitack (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are unable to identify "technologies" to elaborate about in this article, perhaps we should renew discussion about changing the title? Nitack (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

N? POV again
I’m not sure that removing the POV tag was justified. I also don’t think inserting it without any specific discussion here was justified either. Just looking at this section – titled “Clean Coal and the environment” that has only two paragraphs of criticism seems wrong. Maybe the problem is with the article structure. “Clean Coal” could have been called “Environmentally Friendly Coal”. Then “Environmentally Friendly Coal and the environment” is obviously a problem. Why not move all of this section to other sections?--Another-sailor (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree. The whole premise of the concept of clean coal is that coal can be used in a more environmentally friendly manner. The environment section sets the premise for why the concept even has a point.  Additionally, some of the criticisms in that section deal specifically with environmental factors and issues that would be created by the clean coal process itself, not just through coal use.  If anything, I would say what the article needs is for the "Support" and "Criticism" sections broken up to relevant topic specific headings and all of those items currently present assigned accordingly.  The criticism for the required mining practices for coal, which are well documented, might be more viable in a section titled "Coal Supply".  There is a lot of coal under the ground, but to my knowledge there is no cost effective and still environmentally neutral way to extract it. Nitack (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Which Nation?
In section "Byproducts" it says

50 tons/year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally and 5000 tons globally.

Which nation is meant with nationally. It's not clear from the context. If it's the US why is it emphasised here?

Obviously deeply flawed
The first sentence says it all: "Clean coal technology is an oxymoronic..." No serious wikipedia article can start like this because the judgemental character of the word "oxymoronic" is plain. Given the importance of the topic, it is important to replace this article with a well-researched factual description of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinhenz (talk • contribs) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This has been removed. I see nothing wrong with the factual statement that this is a term coined by the coal and/or electric power industry. Tyrerj (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the “who” labels from the third paragraph. This is the introduction of the article. Although it is true, “coal industry groups” could be better identified and developed in the article, this does not make it a “weasel word” here. Greenpeace is identified.--Another-sailor (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead link in lede regarding timeframe
Can someone find some (better?) sources about the potential timeframe? I searched for the cited quote on google and didn't find it, but there has to be something more definitive out there.... —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)