Talk:Clean coal technology

Horrible Article

This is perhaps the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. It reads like a sophomoric term paper arguing against clean coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.62.86 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the article horribly biased or does the article reflect the fact that there is little to no supporting evidence for clean coal? It is funny that the article is constantly being visited and criticized by clean coal fanboys yet none of them produce any citations or evidence when asked. There are plenty of editors who regularly visit this article and attempt to keep it as neutral as possible. If the article has ample sourced and cited criticisms of the concept of clean coal, and no one is able to produce sourced and cited information of a supportive nature, that would indicate that the article is not biased, but that it reflects the current knowledge of the subject. So I will put the onus on you considering that you think the article is unbalanced. Find more credible sources that support clean coal so that as a team we can all edit this article and make it more accurate and reflect the current understanding of the topic. Nitack (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

After having reviewed all of the posts on this particular article, I must admonish CrimsonSage and other contrarians for their attempts to present an opposing view. You might as well tell a Muslim the Mohammed did not leap into heaven on his horse from a rock in Jerusalem or tell a Christian that Jesus did not rise from his tomb. The entire AGW argument has become a religion to those who believe, and can never be disputed by mere facts. Unfortunately, that religious body has overflowed over into a technical article on coal that is full of opinion, but bereft of fact.

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

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

You're trolling, and trolling against the interests of your entire species. It's a shameful display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.200.186 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but was that a factual rebuttal, a snappy repartee, a spirited rejoinder, or and ad hominem attack? As I previously stated, attacking the orthodoxy of a religion is a futile and pointless effort. All we can do, as technologists, is point out the errors often inherent in religious orthodoxies.

I don't mind you believing in AGW, I just don't want you to destroy the world in an effort to force others to accept your religion. Al Queda is doing a fine job of that all by themselves.FarNiente (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Werbung

It’s no wonder that it seems so difficult to get this page to be NPV. The term “Clean coal technology” is an advertising phrase. If you search with Google the results come back for coal-industry sites and to sites objecting to the implication of the term. Wouldn’t it be better to include the content from this page on pages dealing with methods of using coal and methods of dealing with coal byproducts? Other parts obviously belong on a page on Global warming. I’m not so interested in this subject to get involved in “what goes where” but it just seems silly to be trying to twist this advertising phrase into a NPV page.--Another-sailor (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the name that was coined by the mining industry. It is also a complete misnomer given the inherent flaws in the concept. However, it has become the common name for attempts to make coal a more environmentally friendly product. I sincerely don't like the misleading nature of the name, but think that it needs to remain the same given that it is the widely used term for this concept.Nitack (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an industry term. Some people think there are flaws in the current implementations or proposals, others don't -- that's POV. Since we do not know all the ways to use coal, it is unrealistic to make a blanket statement and say there are inherent flaws in the concept. Especially since environmental impact is completely subjective.CrimsonSage (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether there are flaws in the concept or not, it is still an advertising or public relations term only used by coal industry promoters (including a current rash of politicians). Environmental impact is studied and has been verified. It is not “subjective”. And, why did you try to suggest there is question that coal is a fossil fuel? Are you confusing it with the attempts to get us to think that oil is not a remnant of organic material?--Another-sailor (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong. First it is NOT only used by coal industry promotees. Second, environmental impact is completely subjective and nowhere near agreed on by most scientists; to date, there is little to no science in the supposed claims which are largely politically motivated. Third, the idea that coal is a fossil fuel is a theory which has been falling out of favor with scientists for some time. You reverted my edits so that you could keep a negative POV (against Wikipedia policy). This article, as it stands, is a propaganda effort against clean coal. There is nothing neutral about this article, and your revert of my additions is against Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with clean coal, you will need to put in in the critisims section.CrimsonSage (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CrimsonSage, You are apparently very confused about quite a number of things. To say that coal is not a fossil fuel is quite simply ignorant. Please see both the coal page and the fossil fuel page. Now if you have some source for your claims that coal is not a fossil fuel that is credible I am sure we would love to see it. However, with out a source this would be considered WP:Original Research and has no place in an article. You seem very fond of quoting Wikipedia policy on POV but are not very familiar with all the policies of Wikipedia. May I suggest you read them? I would also suggest you actually read and understand the terms you talk about before you make changes. That coal is a fossil fuel is an undisputed fact. Environmental impact is also not disputed by any reputable source. Even the coal industry recognizes the need to clean up their product... hence they put together this whole "clean coal" campaign. After all, why would we need to clean anything up if it were not dirty/hazardous in the first place? Nitack (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nitack. No, I am not confused at all, actually. As I've explained earlier, the natrual coal synthesis process is a distraction from the idea of NPOV of this article and we can discuss all that later. And, that has nothing to do with my personal views or opinions. As mentioned, abiotic oil is rapidly becoming the accepted theory and abiotic coal processes have more recently been discussed and been put forth as theory. That is not the major part of contention in this article, however, and can be adressed at some future time (after the POV is restored to neutral tone). And please, don't be condecending. I've obviously read the Wikipedia policies and we all know 'exactly' what YOU are doing with this biased article against clean coal technology. By the way, there you go again with the phrase 'any reputable source' - in your view, any source that disagrees with your highly biased view must be 'non-reputable.' Again, you say 'even the coal industry' ... 'their product' ... etc. Just look at the way you talk, it's amazing. The fact is, many people, including those in the 'coal industry' (as you put it) believe that there are certain disadvantages to using coal in the way it is generally used today. But the hazards that you're concentrating on with coal, namely so-called anthopogenic climate change and global warming (and related junk science) are not the principle hazards. Many of the reasons why certain aspects of the combustion are even being discussed (like the idea of CO2 capture) are not because of good science and/or true hazards, but rather scientific ignorance and very bad, very totalitarian policy.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

"Umbrella term" vs. "Public relations" term

There's a debate on whether the first sentence of the Intro should refer to "Clean coal" as an umbrella term or a public relations term. I believe that it quite clearly fits the description of an umbrella term, as technologies such as gasification, IGCC and carbon capture and storage are in intense development and not just public relations-figments, so I'm reverting the sentence back to as I had it. However, I think we should ask if there's some kind of consensus on this - which do you think we should use? Simesa (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two sources used as references for "clean coal" being a public relations term, one [1] is the home page of a wiki which doesn't support the conclusion and in fact has several "clean coal" articles itself (and a wiki can't meet WP:RS anyway), and the other [2] is a blog. Simesa (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It can and probably is, both an “Umbrella term" and a "Public relations term”. I would have said “advertising term” but – though also true – it may sound a bit negative. I think it is ok the way it is now (with my last edit). (But don’t try to tell me it is a “generic term”.) In industry when they talk about what is being done to eliminate or deal with waste products, they talk about specifics. “Clean coal” is always intended to evoke an emotional reaction. Can anyone show me one instance where the term is used otherwise?--Another-sailor (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because "clean coal" is both a vague term and a term that promotes a particular point of view, I would describe it as a weasel word. Wikipedia's policy is to avoid weasel words, so describing "clean coal" in the introduction as an "umbrella term" without mentioning that it is a "public relations term" or a "weasel word" is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.Woood (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just listening to an NPR discussion on clean coal technology. I have also read many articles in the news/science magazines/ online content and blogs. My opinion is that "Clean coal technology" has become a widely accepted term to simply mean "use of technology to minimize environmental impact while producing energy from coal". Therefore calling it a "Public relations term" is incorrect. It would be a "Public relations term" if it was a term used exclusively by a small group with vested interest (corporations, politicians). "Clean coal" can be considered an umbrella term just like the "green technology". I would strongly support removing the "Public relations term" description. V j (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article is overwhelmingly a POV against clean coal technology. There are very few citations that support clean coal, but editors are quick to cite criticisms and expand these areas of the clean coal article. Therefore I am going to seek to expand the pro side to balance this article out. So many people claim neutrality and use POV under the guise to protect their own POV cloaked as the "truth of the matter" when this is hardly the case.

Therefore, until we can come to consensus, I request that that neutrality dispute be left alone. (talk)

The article is very well cited and just because you don't agree with the information cited does not make it unbalanced. The fact that you are actively looking for "pro clean coal" information is an example of your own inability to be objective. Find legitimate (academic, government, scientific) sources for new information to be added and no one will object to including them in the article. Removing information that you don't like simply because you don't like it is unacceptable. Please read WP:NPOV because you don't seem to understand it. Nitack (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The objective is not to show any particular subject as having balanced pros and cons, but to simply reflect the reality of the current knowledge. Simply because Clean Coal still has significant cons does not mean that we have to somehow balance them with an equal number of significant pros. We simply have to list them as they are reported. --Skyemoor (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Look up two headings... expanding on the "technologies" was suggested. As for the environmental issues, I strongly disagree. The concept of clean coal was the industry response to environmental concerns about coal burning and CO₂. Additionally, with an unproven concept, that has a very specific goal of making coal more environmentally acceptable, both support and criticism of the concept are absolutely appropriate, just as if this were a viable technology we would see sections for both the strengths and shortcomings. Nitack (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The very language of this article is not befitting of a neutral point of view to the subject at hand. This ought to be obvious to anyone with a background in English equivalent to a high schooler. I found this article by searching for this topic on google and was so disgusted with the method of presentation, and childish antics of those defending this articles horrible use of language towards neutrality, that I felt compelled to come here and throw in my complaint. Have fun ruining wikipedia with your weighted language and then trying to pass it as scholarly material... And just for the record, I could not give a damn either way about this technology. I was merely curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.233.95 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

oxymoronic

"clean" coal is oxymoronic, in a similar way to "surgical warfare". I'm inclined to agree. The opposition has failed to describe in detail how a high percentage of the pollutants can be kept out of our environment, even if we concede that it is ok for clean coal technology to cost several times the cost of dirty coal technology.Ccpoodle (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. So far this is only mentioned in the article as a quote. Would be nice to find a good reference for it and add it more prominently... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

I am somewhat concerned that an article about a potentially major trend in global energy production (for better or for worse) is being mangled by POV ideologues on both sides. I would remind both pro- and anti- 'clean coal technology' editors that putting your points across in an amateurish fashion undermines your arguments rather than supports them. I also note that as everyone from the IEA and the EU to Greenpeace and anti-coal commentators refer openly to clean coal as a concept, it is quite clearly an umbrella term. While this may indeed be a misnomer, attempts to classify 'clean coal technology' as a public relations term are facile; the term, rightly or wrongly, is now common parlance. I will attempt to edit this article into something genuinely NPOV over the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, if I could remind all editors that a Wikipedia article is not a place to stand on your soapbox, however 'right' you opinions may be. SupernautRemix (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A week ago the article was way to the left, now it is way to the right. The article ought to cover multiple points of view. If nothing else, then there should be sections for "proponents" and "opponents". Mikiemike (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that Neutralpov has reverted the changes removing 'public relations term' from the initial paragraph, citing prior concensus. Having gone through the talk archive, I cannot see any consensus for keeping 'public relations term' in the article (quite the reverse, in fact), although I do appreciate that there are a number of sensible concerns about it being an inappropriate term. I do not wish to set off an editing war on this particular point and I appreciate that there is some strong feeling over this - so could someone please supply a valid reference for clean coal being a term that has been specifically contrived for use in public relations. SupernautRemix (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)