America only has 1 clean coal power plant. China has hundreds of clean coal power plants.

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Turk_Jr._Coal_Plant

https://chinaeconomicreview.com/emi...tted-to-three-quarters-of-chinas-coal-plants/

Emission-reducing tech fitted to three-quarters of China’s coal plants

Beijing announced this week that while China may be the king of coal power, it at least has the cleanest coal plants, with three-quarters of its coal power plants now having been fitted with emission-cutting technology, reports Caixin.

The past four decades have seen cheap coal power plants supports the nation’s unparalleled economic growth. The plants caused significant ecological and environmental damage however, forcing authorities to prioritize efforts in cleaning up, particularly in the northern cities that have become known for their high levels of smog.

A landmark was celebrated this week, with at least 700 gigawatts of power plants having now been fitted with “ultra-low emission” technology. This means the country has more than achieved its aim of fitting 580 gigawatts-worth of plants with the technology two years ahead of schedule.

“At present, the emission levels of soot, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in coal-fired power plants in China are close to those of gas-fired power plants, which are stricter than the emission requirements of developed countries by more than 50%,” explained the president of government think tank the State Power Environmental Protection Research Institute of China, Zhu Fahua, in a Xinhua report.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

@pakistanipower @nahtanbob @gambit @vostok @F-22Raptor

 

[055_destroyer]

China has world largest deposit of coal. They even has plant that convert coal to petroleum.

 

[Menthol]

I think USA is more focus on nuclear power plant as the main source for electricity.

And USA is already fulfilled the electricity need, so that's why they don't need new coal power plant.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I think USA is more focus on nuclear power plant as the main source for electricity.

And USA is already fulfilled the electricity need, so that's why they don't need new coal power plant.

Nuclear is toxic. Clean coal is clean. It's a no brainer which is better.

 

[ziaulislam]

Nuclear is toxic. Clean coal is clean. It's a no brainer which is better.

how is fourth gen nuclear plant toxic..and how is CO producing coal green/clean?

 

[Hareeb]

Nuclear is toxic. Clean coal is clean. It's a no brainer which is better.

Unlike coal, nuclear waste could be dumped in sea or far flung areas and doesn't effect ozone layer.

 

[patero]

Nuclear is toxic. Clean coal is clean. It's a no brainer which is better.

Well no it isn't, that's the big lie that is peddled.

 

[Dante80]

sigh

China has world largest deposit of coal. They even has plant that convert coal to petroleum.

China holds the third largest coal reserves in the world. Second is Russia, USA is first. And coal liquefaction is a technology that has been around for a century. Hell, coal liquefaction became an integral part of the German industry and helped to fuel its military during World War II.

I think USA is more focus on nuclear power plant as the main source for electricity.

And USA is already fulfilled the electricity need, so that's why they don't need new coal power plant.

No, Coal is still King in the US, Nuclear never was. Coal IS getting phased out though, mostly due to natural gas plants becoming cheaper for load base operations.



There is not much movement on the nuclear sector in the US.

Nuclear is toxic. Clean coal is clean. It's a no brainer which is better.

Nuclear Power plants "produce" smalls amounts of radioactive waste. Coal plants produce both a lot of toxic waste and a lot of pollution. Clean Coal technologies are currently not economically viable. Coal is widely regarded as the dirtiest of the common fuels for industrial processes and power generation. This is not going to change anytime soon, at least in a quantifiable way.

Please don't use phrases like "it's a no brainer" for subjects that you clearly have a superficial knowledge of. Reading an article or two online is not enough to weigh in on something like this..

Unlike coal, nuclear waste could be dumped in sea or far flung areas and doesn't effect ozone layer.

The management of nuclear waste is a rather big issue. You cannot really dump them in the sea or in far flung areas for a multitude of reasons (although - incredibly enough - this was done until the 60's by many nations).

A good starter about this issue can be found here. It is a pretty interesting subject for discussion. Also, as far as the US is concerned, this is a good - and easy to digest - starter too.