Talk:Coal pollution mitigation/Archive 1

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Misleading claim that scrubbers don't reduce GHGs
The following, from the Criticism section, was misleading, and didn't clarify if anyone other than the person quoted believed it.
 * Also, scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases: "Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO2, Hg(2+), and SO3 – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets."

- Cherise Burda, The Pembina Institute

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality
Adding section because there isn't one.

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

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

Under the Environment section, there is a reference to the IPCC report. That entire report was invalidated by the fact they "lost" their entire original data set. In scientific circles, if you can't produce your data set for subsequent validation and validate if the data is reproducible, then your study is invalidated and not publishable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.47.34.2 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thoughts? – MirancheT C 07:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with this. The term "Clean Coal" doesn't describe anything specific and the name itself is erroneous. At best it's an umbrella term representing a number of technology concepts that hope to make coal-based generation more efficient or pollute less.  At worst, it's nothing more than marketing spin by the coal industry.  Giving "Clean Coal" a page on Wikipedia that does anything other than describe the marketing efforts by the coal industry to convince or confuse consumers does a discredit to Wikipedia. The balance of the content should be on the Clean coal technologies page.  Ghouse (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more - "Clean Coal" is unquestionably a PR/marketing term. Period. As such it most certainly should NOT be the title for an article. I typed it in expecting to find that it was a redirecct page and was dumbfounded to discover an article using that term as its title. Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I was a bit surprised to see that an article with this title even exists. --Eamonnca1 TALK 06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Clean Coal is no more a marketing term than "Green Energy"/"Sustainable Energy".  Both are marketing creations and both are now officially branded in the USA.  From a NPOV reference: when people come searching for "Clean Coal", should they be redirected to an article entitled "Same ole re-branded dirty coal"?   Although some may consider that a NPOV title, I believe people who are not emotionally engaged in the topic would think otherwise.  If there is agreement on renaming "Clean Coal", surely you will not object when someone renames "Green Energy" or "Sustainable Energy" to a "more exact description"...  WP:POV and WP:AXE cut both ways  PeterWesco (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree this article should be renamed, and clean coal should be a redirect. See my comment above in the discussion of whether this topic deserves its own page (I think it should fall under the Carbon Capture and Storage page). Trevorzink (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Include Cost analysis of only existing clean coal plant (CCS plant to be precise)
World-First Financial Analysis of World's First Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Project "Our report finds that the project generates losses in excess of $1-billion for electricity consumers of Saskatchewan: they will be paying for those losses through higher electricity prices for many years to come." http://www.saskwind.ca/boundary-ccs

Background info and summary in green online magazine Grist: http://grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyotoGrrl (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Clean coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090718230924/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2009/TECH/07/13/carbon.capture.storage/ to http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/13/carbon.capture.storage/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/asia-energy-revolution/dirty-energy/clean-coal-myth/clean-coal-myths-and-facts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

CO2 is not dirty nor is it a pollutant. Clean coal should not include carbon dioxide capture and storage.
45.58.81.178 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That would seem to go against what coal industry advocates say, for example the World Coal Association. But if you've got reliable sources, why not contribute to the article?--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

$20 - $30 billion. Peanuts for the government or large business. Half of Bill Gates' personal wealth would fix the whole mess - wow! Gassification of coal - very old tech. Done in WW2 by the Germans. A catalytic converter attached to a plant and coal is clean as propane. 2601:181:8301:4510:8DF:E4D0:427E:30F (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Coal gasification was commercialized more than two hundred years ago. Whether to call something "clean" is a matter of purpose or preference. Those who are for something and against something else will call those things "clean" and "dirty" to suit their particular purposes. Those who are easily satisfied will find cheaper satisfaction, while those who are more picky will prefer something more expensive, especially if they dislike the people who must pay. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Clean coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

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

✅

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

Title change
The change from Clean coal to Coal pollution mitigation seems to have been done without any discussion. Clean coal may be an oxymoron but it is a term that is very widely used. Roberttherambler (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. And the term "homeopathic medicine" is widely used, but that doesn't make it medicine. I provided references for the marketing term being an oxymoron at best and actually positively Orwellian. This title is much more neutral. I don't know when the industry invented the term, this (2008?) DoE document discusses pollution mitigation and does not mention it: . Guy (Help!) 12:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved
I have WP:BOLDly moved this, leaving a redirect of course, because there are plenty of references attesting to the fact that the marketing term "clean coal" is an oxymoron. Coal pollution mitigation has been under investigation for decades, it was poart of my studies as an electrical engineering undergraduate in the 1980s, but "clean coal" is a recent coining and was invented and promulgated by those seeking to maintain coal's place in the energy mix. My title might not be the best, but it's WP:NPOV in a way that "clean coal" is clearly not, per discussions above. I also think that the article name was the single biggest NPOV issue with the article, so I don't think it needs the POV tag any more. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert this but I think there should have been a discussion first. Are you going to update the many links to Clean coal? Roberttherambler (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOLD :-) Guy (Help!) 12:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on move
This article was moved from Clean coal to Coal pollution mitigation without discussion. Should this move be reversed? See also Talk:Clean coal technology. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. First, strategies to mitigate coal pollution go back decades, much longer than the term "clean coal". Flue gas desulfurization (first tried in 1850!) was a huge deal when I was studying for my electrical engineering degree, and fluidised bed combustion and numeorus other techniques aimed at reducing pollution have been under active investigation for decades. Second, "clean coal" is (a) a marketing term not a technical or scientific one, and (b) an oxymoron. It basically doesn't exist even as spun by Big Coal: the so-called "clean coal" technologies are not in production at any scale, whereas coal pollution mitigation has been in active use since the 70s. Third, numerous editors have noted that an article title which official endorses the coal industry's preferred term for slightly-less-dirty coal, is not in line with WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As things stand, the article title does not match the article content because there are still many mentions of "clean coal" in the article. Is the article supposed to be about pre-1970 or post-1970 mitigation efforts? Roberttherambler (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned there might be a political motive behind the change. The article has been called "Clean coal" since 2005, so why change it now? Is it because President Trump is a fan of Clean coal? Roberttherambler (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The name "clean coal" is political, coal pollution mitigation is not. I am an engineer, and an electrical engineering graduate, not a politician. If the article is going to be about the political machinations of "Big Coal" to greenwash its product, then it should be rewritten as such, but as it stands it's trying to describe the technical effort to reduce coal pollution, which dates back to the mid 19th Century. The power generation industry knows coal is dirty, we're not afraid of that, any more than we're afraid of the long half-life of nuclear waste: it is what it is. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but the article needs a re-write to remove the term "Clean coal" except where it is used as a PR term. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that is a separate issue. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I hoped to have more than two people discussing this but it seems nobody else is interested. I have no objection if this RfC is now closed. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It supports my view that this is not really controversial, anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment NOt really. The reason for my apparent lack of interest is that I had not hitherto received any RFC, or known anything about the article or move. As things stand I support the view that the new title is preferable, given the existence of the Clean coal redir. I also support the idea that a certain amount of editing of the body text might be necessary to match the move, paying due attention to avoid distortion of issues for any reasons of politics or prejudice either one way or any other. Incidentally, I too am puzzled, because I would have thought that such a subject would have attracted the usual ill-informed hysteria. As things stand I am more or less in accord with the foregoing views. JonRichfield (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Undo the move / RFC
A discussion section above talking about undoing the BOLD title change was marked but seems not an completed discussion or actual WP:RFCEND as it was only a week with little content and not the poster withdrawing the topic.

My 2 cents is this move doesn't look right, when many or most reference titles use "Clean coal" that's just the WP:COMMONNAME. That it's political or PR wordplay or an opinion all fits under WP:POVNAME -- use it anyway, and content can talk to that in WP:DUE weight. If you want little Johnny to get informed about clean coal and understand what the label is or means, you're going to have to use the words "clean coal" in the sentence.

Meanwhile, further RFC is at []. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that its appropriate to use the POV-pushing term.
 * If you want little Johnny to get informed about clean coal and understand what the label is or means, you're going to have to use the words "clean coal" in the sentence.
 * Nope, that's what redirects are for.
 * James F. (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article literally starts: Coal pollution mitigation, often referred to by the public relations term clean coal... Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Financial impact of clean coal
I would like to change the topic of "Potential financial cost of reducing pollution from coal" to "Potential financial impact of reducing pollution from coal". This will open up the subject to include information about potential financial gain from exporting clean coal technologies to other countries.Myothercomputerisyourcomputer (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Just thought Id give notice, Im going to add a section about the potential for the coal industry to make money from clean coal. Please let me know your thoughts on the section once it is up.Myothercomputerisyourcomputer (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it to potential financial impact. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Clean Coal" is worthy of its own page
I have reinstated and edited the page on Clean coal with ample links to the relevant pages for the various technologies.

Incidents such as the TVA coal ash spill make clear that even if CCS is successful coal mining and burning is not clean in the ordinary sense of the word.dinghy (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In reinstating this page we see a bit of a content fork. Part of the issue is that Clean Coal redirected to Clean coal technologies.  Second, while this article was created (reinstate), the technology article continued to be an overview of the clean coal concept, creating redundancy issues.  I've begun to reorganize things such that the technologies article discusses technological issues, and this article gives a broad overview.
 * (To individual who left above comment: can you sign your comments please?) Can you be more specific about the differences between the two?  I don't see a need to create a separate article just to give a "broad overview" - that should be done anyway on the clean coal technology page. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Following the discussion on the Talk:Clean coal technology page, I now think that this page should give an overview of the kind of "average joe" view of what clean coal is, the politics of it, legislation related to it, etc., and the Clean coal technology page should focus on specific technologies intended to mitigate the negative environmental effects of coal. Charlesreid1 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Clean Coal" is a scam, and a fruad designed to rip off the worlds governmenments/taxpaypayers. They better spending their money on renewable technologies such wind, tidal, geothermal and solar such as from Dyesol Limited.
 * To quote myself from below, "These appear to be your opinions and rhetorical questions regarding clean coal. I do not see any suggestions for changing the article. Please use talkpages to discuss the article, not the topic." -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Clean coal is like dry water" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.34.120 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this page, given its current content, should fall under Carbon_capture_and_storage. If the scope is to be expanded to include what are referred to as "prior definitions of clean coal", the article should be renamed to "Coal energy emissions controls". Trevorzink (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Clean coal" seems like should be an article about the term as concept or PR effort and criticisms made of the same. And that seems how the use by RS of quotes around it " 'Clean Coal' is an oxymoron" and comments above seem to be handling it as. But "Clean coal technologies" would seem a separate article about mechanisms to reduce the pollution. Markbassett (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a sub-section in the article that explains the term "Clean Coal". This section could cover everything from the definition that we commonly hear about in society to the prior definitions (this would give the prior terminology section a logical reason to be in the article). It could also include why we opted to use the name "coal pollution mitigation" apposed to "clean coal". Let me know your thoughts.Myothercomputerisyourcomputer (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Article is not neutral (at all!)
This article reads like a pamphlet from an activist group. The outrageously partisan opinions are "supported" by references to opinion pieces by partisan hacks in newspapers and magazines. The phrase "clean coal" is in standard use, whether people who live electricty-free lifestyles like it or not. For example: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/coal/clean-coal/4279, and one can find many university sites that use the phrase. Many common phrases are oxymoronic, e.g. "jumbo shrimp", but they are nevertheless used. Wikipedia should not be a place for people to exhibit symptoms of acute denial. "Dirty coal" refers to coal that is used with no pollution mitigation measures, and that is often contaminated with sulphur compounds to start with. "Clean coal" refers to coal that is generally low in noxious contaminants to begin with, and is used at facilities equipped with pollution-minimizing technologies.This is a very poor article indeed. Remove the soapbox ranting from it and it might be okay.77Mike77 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The term has been loosely used for over a century, but it is not technically correct because attemtps to mitigate the environmental impact of coal use have only ever addressed a subset of them. I have worked n a coal fired power station, I have a degree in electrical engineering, this is not bias, it's reality. Coal is filthy, no honest person with any knowledge of the field will deny it. Clean coal as currently used is an industry propaganda term and absolutely is an oxymoron: fractionally less dirty coal, yes, or sweeping the dirt under the rug coal, for CCS, but clean? No way. That doesn't make coal pollution mitigation a bad idea, it doesn't mean we should not use coal for power, it just means we should do it with our eyes open. A bit like driving a car. It's less environmentally sustainable than a bicycle, and if we deny that we're deluding ourselves, but it has utility, and the game is balancing utility against the costs and risks. Which is what engineers do for a living, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coal pollution mitigation. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/17/why-clean-coal-is-years-away.html?PageNr=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108052917/http://www.iea-coal.org/site/ieaccc/home to http://www.iea-coal.org/site/ieaccc/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal pollution mitigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226020613/http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Climate/clim-2.cfm?&CFID=1255395&CFTOKEN=96369856 to http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Climate/clim-2.cfm?&CFID=1255395&CFTOKEN=96369856

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

More on international picture
There seems a bit too much US-focus in this article. I'm thinking googling "coal pollution mitigation" gives a more international set, such as "in Netherlands" what countries do coal exports go to Coal, Australian ....
 * Clean Coal Tech noting economic failures of it for Netherlands and Germany
 * The Dutch Coal Mistake (for options other than mitigating coal);
 * U.S. Coal Exports e.g. Netherlands, China, Japan, India, South Korea ...
 * 25% of U.S> coal exports go to Asia
 * In China the War on Coal Just Got Serious
 * Where does Australia's Coal Go ?
 * Facts on Australian coal production

Any suggestions on non-US coal burning ? Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the US-funded projects are operating; are any?

 * Note: this section is replaced from the archives to address several incidents of removal from the intro over the past 15 months. 184.96.253.8 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Of the 22 projects listed on https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/clean-coal-power-initiative, four are listed as major projects underway, but none of those are in operation:


 * Hydrogen Energy California Project: "CURRENT STATUS: Delays associated with finalization of the carbon dioxide off-take agreement and other issues are impacting the HECA project. Although the period of performance for the DOE award ended on January 20, 2015, HECA continues to fund project development independently."


 * Petra Nova - W.A. Parish Project passed acceptance testing but hasn't been turned on yet as of January 10: "Over the next few years... in the near future." Because it's absurdly expensive for what it does.


 * Southern Company - Kemper County "CURRENT STATUS: Construction is nearly complete and commissioning activities of various subsystems is currently underway." The article on it, Kemper Project, says, "On January 6, 2017, Mississippi Power said it expects the plant to be running using lignite coal by the end of the month. The project is more than two years behind schedule, and its cost has increased to $6.98 billion, more than double the original estimate $2.9 billion.[6][7] According to a Sierra Club analysis, Kemper is the most expensive power plant ever built for the watts of electricity it will generate.[8]"


 * Texas Clean Energy Project "CURRENT STATUS: The TCEP project has experienced a number of issues including delays associated with closing on project financing."

All of the projects listed as "completed" are not described as operational, either in the future tense, e.g., "Excelsior Energy will license, construct, own and operate the Mesaba Energy Project, an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) electric power generating station.... The Project promises to accelerate nation-wide deployment of advanced clean coal projects to help the industry meet the Department of Energy's aggressive goals for coal-fueled power generation," or in the past tense, e.g., "Period of Operation: 17 months."

Are there any projects funded by non-US sources which are actually operating? 184.96.140.48 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Kemper is supposed to go live on Jan 31, 2017.
 * I just updated the summary sentence to reflect the new Southern Company plant. I don't know for sure that there aren't any others, even though I say the sole exception:
 * "Of the 22 clean coal demonstration projects funded by the U.S. Department of Energy since 2003, none are in operation as of Mid-2016, having been abandoned or delayed due to capital budget overruns or discontinued because of excessive operating expenses.[7] The sole exception is the Southern Company plant which is scheduled to enter commercial service on January 31, 2017[8]"
 * Gregfreemyer (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope: http://mississippipowernews.com/2017/01/31/mississippi-power-issues-statement-regarding-kemper-county-energy-facility-progress-and-schedule/ 184.96.140.165 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this article about "coal pollution mitigation" in general, or about carbon capture and storage?
The article's first few paragraphs seem to indicate the former, but the latter sections: "potential financial impact"; "political support" and "criticism of the approach" are all specific to CCS. Shouldn't those be on the CCS page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H870rce (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Coke fuel
Why is there no mention of coke fuel in an article on clean coal? According to the coke fuel Wikipedia page, it is heat treated coal that produces almost no emissions when burned. Isn't coke the ultimate form of clean coal? So, I added a link in the see also section, but I think this needs a section within the article, perhaps in an alternate solutions area. Clearly, it's not a gas capture solution, but it seems to be a particulate emission solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Clean coal technology into Coal pollution mitigation. I think that the content in the Clean coal technology article can easily be explained in the context of Coal pollution mitigation, and the Coal pollution mitigation article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Clean coal technology will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. The titles refer to the same concept. The Clean coal technology is full of trivia that doesn't need to be carried over. What we need is a single article that helps the reader understand to what extent this stuff works, how mature and scalable it is, and how much it costs. In terms of costs, I'd be interested in seeing analyses of whether it's actually cheaper than renewable energy solutions. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management
Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover the US Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management at all. Or have I missed it?

Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management is currently a redlink. It should IMO redirect to a section here. Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea. There should be instructions under the "help" link on how to do it but if you have any problems let us know.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contains an unsourced claim $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research which if sourced would be an interesting addition. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've created a very stubby section and the redirect. Andrewa (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources for OCC
http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/farrell_2018_jspg.pdf is a very critical assessment of OCC but probably contains some citeable material.

https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=DFEB7258-C07E-43F3-8257-B0F9B90E8746 also looks interesting. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mardig94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Adakiko
Adakiko immediately deleted a reasonable edit. Pro-science, though it was not pro-coal. Adakiko should be removed as an editor. 75.111.9.44 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Big Ideas in Chemistry
— Assignment last updated by ChemWorx (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing the Background
I am planning on editing and redoing the background of Coal Pollution Mitigation. Planning on bringing up Child laborers dealing with coal mining to show how bad coal is when not burned or used for energy (coal dust) and to also bring up the negative things that were happening when coals were being used when burned on how it affected the environment people wise and just the water and food source, including acid rain. Going to be talking about who saw that this was a situation what was the solution and that loophole in history on how the mitigation was established. Then finally we will show the positive effects that coal pollution mitigation has affected our environment for the better. AszlynA (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am now working/ finished putting more information on how burning coal effected the environment. You have mentioned that the chemicals from burning coal causes acid rain but another source on how burning coal is really bad for the environment is smog. Smog was another effect from urning coal back in the industrial Revolution which cause man people to fall ill and die from smog because of smog. After when I have finished editing that part will would put more information on the measurement data on coal pollution from the begging (when it became a problem) the middle (leaving the information on where you have provided) and then information on the coal pollution that is more updated. AszlynA (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)