Robatoy wrote:
....

One big difference in pollutants is to burn that ' clean coal' those
adverts on US TV talk about. *smirk*
Seriously, one plant I worked at had a pile of 'summer coal' for those
hazy days.

That used to be quite common; not so much any longer w/ restricted
limits altho may be some places that still have to. Detroit Edison
Monroe plant did so routinely; we had online sulfur meter there to
monitor in real time.

One major advantage in going to the super-critical cycle; it could
reduce coal consumption 20% or even more depending on the age/efficiency
of generation it replaced.

Over the last 30 years or so, SO2 and NOx reduction through scrubbing
and selective catalytic reduction technologies has made significant
differences in those smog/acid rain contributors. Fabric filters and
improvements in electrostatic precipitators have reduced particulate
emissions and more recently, technologies such as wet electrostatic
precipitators and sorbent injection are capable of further reductions
including fine particulates. Commercially available mercury control,
for both eastern and western coals are being deployed in the US now.

Eventual C sequestration is undoubtedly on the horizon.

That said, nukes have major advantages in regard to operating emissions
but the closure of the backend of the fuel cycle is still an impediment
in the US owing to lack of political resolve primarily.

....

One of OPG's stations had a blend B&W and CE boilers. Circ pumps and
tangential fires made the CE's my favourites. Those were only 500'MW
single shaft two-pole, the B&W were tandems. Big wheels on the LP
side. None were over 30% efficient.

Bull Run is CE tangential-fired. I, too, like the tangential furnace
despite being a B&W retiree (altho I was NPGD, not FPGD; I only drifted
into the fossil side years later in the consulting gig).

--