Talk:Waste-to-energy

message: In which part of the world do you percieve any difference between the terms incineration and waste-to-energy?
I am working professionally with such plants, and I feel that it would be the same to have two articles:
automobile - A slow noisy and rather polluting vehicle with a single stroke engine and a low comfort level. Still popular in some low income countries.
car - Similar use as an automobile, but much more sophisticated. The highly efficient (and often computer controlled) engine of a car provides superior emission control and fuel efficiency compared to automobiles.
Why do we have these separate articles for "outdated" and "contemporary" incinerator types???
--Claush66 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I originally came to wikipedia there were two parallel articles on waste to energy and incineration both covering the same topic. In the waste industry the terms waste to energy and incineration are both used interchangably. Waste to energy when referred to in this sense is a form of linguistic detoxification, in essence trying to distinguish between modern incineration facilities and the older polluting ones. Literally however and most accurately waste to energy refers to a great deal more technologies than incineration alone. The waste to energy section was therefore restructured to represent this fact and to avoid people pushing incineration to hijack the term waste-to-energy or energy-from-waste on thier own. Personally I am neither against nor in favour of this technology as part of a wider waste treatment matrix, as long as it is cost effective and effective on the point of carbon emissions.--Alex 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised you changed your signature! I will re-read both articles and check them for you. One element I'm not so comfortable with is the references to the USA in the opening paragraphs of the waste to energy article. I think it should be focused more internationally and not just US.--Alex 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why seperate articles for outdated and contemporary incineration technology?? 

message: This section is POV because it implies that biomass is somehow different from other waste. It needs to be fixed or deleted. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Determination of the Biomass Fraction

message: And why delete the link to the diagrams of how they work.  Pinellas county really has this and it is as valid as the other plants, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.14.51 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the addition! However, Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, so we try to keep them to a minimum. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete pinellas county from the list of waste to energy plants list? 

message: Hi, may i know how to produce electricity from garbages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.89.97 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: incinerate waste --> produce heat --> produce steam --> run steam through an electric generator. Rather similar principle as a coal power plant.--83.77.138.189 (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  physics 

message: In the Intro you state that: 
Waste-to-energy (WtE) or energy-from-waste (EfW) is the process of creating energy in the form of electricity or heat from the incineration of waste source.
It would be more correct to say that: 
Waste-to-energy (WtE) or energy-from-waste (EfW) is the process of transforming the energy contained in a waste source into electricity or heat.
Similarly, you state that: 
Most WtE processes produce electricity directly through combustion, or produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or synthetic fuels.
It would be more correct to say that: 
Most WtE processes combust the waste source directly, or produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or synthetic fuels. Different methods are then applied to transform the released energy into electricity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.203.109.254 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  energy is transformed not created / combustion is just the first step of the transformation of the energy contained in the waste into electricity 

message: Besides large plants, domestic waste-to-energy incinerators also exist. For example, the refuge de Sarenne has a domestic waste-to-energy plant. It is made by combining a wood-fired gasification boiler with a Stirling motor.Refuge de Sarenne waste incinerator hooked up to Stirling motorRefuge de Sarenne using wood-fired gasification boiler  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.91.212 (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Refuge de Sarenne

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Waste-to-energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311071733/http://zmag.dk/showmag.php?mid=wsdps to http://www.zmag.dk/showmag.php?mid=wsdps
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Waste-to-energy article is very well organized and contains a good amount of references from reliable sources. The article has very informative sections of methods and history, and links all of the examples of waste-to-energy plants to further reading pages. Overall the article is very well put together and edited, with neutral information and remains successfully un-opinionated. More information on the history could be added from other reliable sources. Aborkowski45 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbi's Peer Review 

message: At the end of the 'History' section this paragraph: 
 
"Gasification and pyrolysis processes have been known and used for centuries and for coal as early as the 18th century.... Development technologies for processing [residual solid mixed waste] has only become a focus of attention in recent years stimulated by the search for more efficient energy recovery. (2004) [6]" 
 
is formatted as if it was a direct citation (i.e. a copy-and-paste-paragraph), but no source is mentioned IN the text and there also are no quotation marks 
 
((here in the talk page I put the complete paragraph into quotation marks (in the text, IN THE CASE THAT it was a direct citation the last one should be directly after 'recovery.': "Gasification (...) recovery.").)) 
 
– so did this formatting happen accidentally and the text is really meant as plain article text, so the formatting should be changed to normal, or are clear citation-markers
and -sources-information missing in the text? 2A02:3032:5:D393:1:1:6D22:51CD (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear paragraph formatting 

message: It's a copy of the one in the incineration article, or the other way around. Not sure what the policy is on that, but it is inefficient; the two sections already slightly drifted, both having added value added since their common ancestor. WanderingQuill (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon dioxide emissions section is duplicated