Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 9 September 2008

Energy NA‑class High‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages' -- 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)

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 reconciled. Sprendo (talk) 04:16, 1 June 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 Misplaced Pages policy with regards to POV. Certainly, it is one of the most biased articles in all of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages terms. WP:WEASEL Nitack (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not 'own' the article. As others have told you, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Advertising

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy on POV but are not very familiar with all the policies of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Title

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 :) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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".

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Carbon_capture_and_storage"
2. http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/AssessmentBriefs/The_Full_Portfolio.pdf
3. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm
4. http://www.csiro.gov.au/resources/ps3ft.html
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/IGCC
6. http://www.zerogen.com.au/technologies/gasification
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/Carbon_capture_and_storage#CO2_storage_.28sequestration.29
8. http://www.zerogen.com.au/technologies/capture

• NA-Class energy pages
• High-importance energy articles