User talk:Claush66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit]

Welcome

User:Jtkiefer/Welcomed

welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incineration

Hi. Glad to see you working on this article, thanks. Given your edit summary, I'd like to comment. As you probably know, there is a history of environmental/neighborhood disputes over incinerators, both hazardous and MSW. In these disputes, the term "waste-to-energy" has been problematized. Some anti-incinerator advocates would say that the term is a euphemism, downplays the pollution effects, and therefore is not synonymous with incineration. While you probably disagree with that point-of-view, I would encourage you as a wikipedia editor to try to represent that view in a fair manner. Of course, to the extent that it is a minority dissent, you need not give that view WP:UNDUE weight within the article. How's that sound? Thanks! Best regards in Danish :) HG | Talk 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] waste-to-energy <-> incineration

Hi Alex,

I saw that you merged the two articles on wte and incineration. Splendid idea!

But you still seem to treat the two terms differently. Is that how the words are used in the UK? A am working professionally with incineration plants in Scandinavia, and they certainly does not fit into the description in the article - they would all be waste-to-energy plants. We definitely use the two terms interchangably, the latter most often when addressing people with little prior knowledge on what it is.

Do you percieve any difference?

Claus

Hi Claus,

Thanks for the comments. My aim is to separate what the industry terms waste-to-energy plants and energy-from-waste plants, which generally means incineration. Perhaps this indicates a degree of linguistic detoxification against the stigma associated with old incineration facilities. Literally energy from waste includes anaerobic digestion, gasification & pyrolysis amongst other technologies. I have aimed for the advanced WtE facilities to be covered and differentiated in the main incineration article. The waste to energy article therefor covers all forms of waste to energy and not simply the terms that advanced incineration facilities have encompassed. Hope this explains the logic.

Alex

Hi Alex,

I accept your point, that the term waste-to-energy may be used for other technologies as well. I have not heard it being used like that (neither when working with gasification research), but I assume that you have - and it does make sense to me. Regarding the linguistic detoxification, you may be right. I prefer incineration, since this is in essence what happens to the waste.

Claus

[edit] Incineration article

Hi Claus, I think one thing the incineration article should contain is a section on carbon emissions. Our present thinking is that all waste treatment facilities should be considered on their carbon production potential. More specifically when used for energy generation the consideration should be tonnes of CO2 emitted to atmosphere per MWh of power utilised.--Alex 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CO2 emissions

Hi Alex. It would be straight-forward to describe the direct CO2 emissions through the stack. As for coal and others, nearly all of the C-content in the fuel is converted to CO2. The picky part of such a section would be the coverage of the arguments about biodegradable<->fossil-originated wastes, and wether the former (such as kitchen and garden waste) is renewable. But it is a good idea having such a section. I will give it a try, when I find time for it.

If you have any inputs for the 'picky' suff, please let me know

--Claus Hindsgaul 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Claus, I aggree with your comments as per the biogenic fraction of the waste counting towards renewable energy. I understand methods of measuring this are presently under debate in the UK. They are looking to measure Carbon 14 in the flu gases as a method of characterising the input waste. I'll keep an eye out for useful information as it comes out.--Alex 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] air heater article

It looks like you would be qualified to have an opinion about my article on air heaters. Do you think it is clear enough? Or maybe something should be added? air heater Mlrusch 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mlrush, I have done some minor edits to the article, but I do agree with the suggestion to merge it with air preheaters. --Claus Hindsgaul 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] District Heating - Finland

Re: Finland as the global leader in cobined heat and power. I didn't invent the claim. I read it here. http://www.energia.fi/en/districtheating/districtheatinginfinland/production. Of course, that does not make the authors (or their translator) right but how are you so sure that it is wrong?--Tom (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, Just look at the numbers in the same article. Finland has less District Heating penetration than e.g. Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Poland. Neither do they have as long experience as e.g. Sweden, Denmark and Germany (>100 years) - nor a percieved or documented leading role as manufacturer.

While Finland certainly belongs to the better part, I think we should not name one country as "the global leader" without some clear facts supporting it. I did not see any such facts about Finland, so I deleted the mention of it being the global leader. I am aware that commercial companies often use such phrases, but we should be a little more critical before citing them in an encyclopedia.

I hope this explains my edit to you.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Claus

Oooops, sorry! I failed to notice that you had written Global Leader in combined heat and power (not district heating). By chance, my conclusion still stands however, as at least Denmark seems to have better numbers (Denmark may or may not be the global leader then :-) ).

Finland: 49% district heating, 80% of this is CHP

Denmark: 60% district heating, 80% of this is CHP

It may be that the absolute amount of installed MW of CHP in Finland is larger (i dont know). But I still dont see any indisputable Global Leader...

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Ninja Game

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Stupid Ninja Game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)