Running freshly mined coal chunks through a waterfall to wash off dirt doesn’t seem like it would be much less effective than proposed carbon sequestration methods.
Seriously – plant a bunch of trees downwind of the coal fire == sequestration. Capture and compress these emissions then injected them into the Earth … what could go wrong with that? Combine it with some other elements to make limestone. Split CO2 molecules, released pure O2 into the air & then made diamonds or carbon nano-tubes. Whatever “clean the coal emissions” approach you want to go with, you still have mercury, cobalt, arsenic, hydrofloric acid, cadmium, beryllium, chromium, lead, manganese … all sorts of pollutants escaping into the atmosphere. Spent a lot of money to get there, created public perception that environmental impact had been negated, and if my rudimentary understanding of the proposed sequestration methods is anywhere near accurate the energy output of the facility is reduced as well (i.e. I need to burn MORE coal w/ sequestration to produce the same amount of energy).
Plus dirt – not generally combustible stuff. Wouldn’t dirt already be washed off ’cause I’m not paying per tonne or whatever to get a bunch of non-burny stuff?