Talk:Waste-to-energy plant

Waste-to-energy plant received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Sustainability Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

Untitled

hello please may i have the article of wastes to energy i m manisha.r my id is manis856@yahoo.co.in. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.187.215 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

~~If anyone's reading this, I majorly edited. Hope I didn't mess anything up.~~ ~~I know about the text in the box. I'll fix that as soon as I can.~~ Green caterpillar 02:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove cleanup tag?

~~Does this look good? Green caterpillar 04:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merging proposal

I have merged this article into incineration as per discussion below. --Alex 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article, Incineration, is about a very similar subject. Should it be merged into here? Green caterpillar 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Incineration article is by far the better of the two articles. It is arranged better and is much more coherent (better written and easier to understand). I do agree it is a good idea to merge the two ... but I think this article (Waste-to-energy plant should be merged into the Incineration article. There would be a lot of work involved and it would be best done by someone who has some real-world experience in incineration and waste-to-energy plants. Otherwise it could turn into a big mess. - mbeychok 05:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I put this article under peer review. What can be done about that? Green caterpillar 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green caterpillar, I don't really know the answer to that. However, I imagine that all you have to do is remove it from this page and also include another posting here saying that you changed your mind and removed the tag. - mbeychok 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the waste-to-energy should be merged into the incineration article. There should be a disambiguation page first explaining there are many ways of generating energy from waste that dont involve incineration. Please see:

The incineration marketing boys have stolen the terms waste-to-energy WtE and energy-from-waste EfW however it is not technically correct to say incineration is the only mechanism of generating energy from waste. --Alex 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should merge this article into incineration and rename it to this title, because the title "Waste-to-energy plant" would be all-inclusive of the methods mentioned above. Green caterpillar 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of this article

I have a major problem with this article. I would consider it to be highly misleading and in effect, propoganda for the waste to energy industry. Almost every factual statement in it is at least questionable. I am not proposing to edit it now, as i don't have the correct references to hand. But i think there should be a major health warning on this, and the external links, which are very one sided. As someone with a lot of experience in the waste to energy field, i would say its almost impossible to write on this topic in a manner which will satisfy everyone. But this article is so one sided it doesn't even make an attempt. GyatsoLa 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Waste-to-energy plant. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cost advantage?

The "Cost" section currently states, "Waste-to-energy plants may have a significant cost advantage over traditional power options, as the waste-to-energy operator may receive revenue for receiving waste as an alternative to the cost of disposing of waste in a landfill, typically referred to as a 'tipping fee' per ton basis, versus having to pay for the cost of fuel, whereas fuel cost can account for as much as 45 percent of the cost to produce electricity in a coal-powered plant, and 75 percent or more of the cost in a natural gas-powered plant."

No matter how many times I read this sentence, it doesn't make any sense. Do not all landfills receive tipping fees? What does this have to do with the cost of fuel? --Iritscen (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]