User talk:Claush66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Indsæt tekst her som ikke skal wikiformateres==




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)


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)

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

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?


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.


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.


Incineration article[edit]

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)

CO2 emissions[edit]

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)

air heater article[edit]

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)

District Heating - Finland[edit]

Re: Finland as the global leader in cobined heat and power. I didn't invent the claim. I read it here. 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)

Stupid Ninja Game[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

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)

Nuclear Power for District Heating[edit]

In answer to your question on my talk page about nuclear power being used for cogeneration / district heating, please see the article District heating. In particular, the following text:

Nuclear energy can be used for district heating. The principals for a conventional combination of cogeneration and district heating applies the same for nuclear as it does for a thermal power station]]. One use of nuclear heat generation was with the Ågesta Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden. In Switzerland, the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant provides heat to about 20,000 people. Russia has several cogeneration nuclear plants which together provided 11.4 PJ of district heat in 2005. Russian nuclear district heating is planned to nearly triple within a decade as new plants are built.

--WhiteDragon (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

sugarcane leaves gasifier[edit]

Can you please explain why you are reverting the edits on this.

This should be obvious to you already: as another author already explained, the pointer to your paper on yet another suggested process has no value to the enclypedia. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete my post on the disintigration page. I have given some information on a new technology which is a new innovative patented technology, receiving the patent last year in the US. As to the technology being very specific to a commercial owner or website, SO IS VIAGRA!!!!, Please investigate this new technology yourself before just deleting important information Kearns Waste Sciences Group Inc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul john kinsella (talkcontribs) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Be advised that Wikipedia is not for product commercials (even if they actually left the drawing board). Its an encyclopeda. Anyway I did even check the web site. The rotary kiln incinerator type is already described properly in the incinerator article. Nothing on your website indicated anything new and special - except for bold and unrealistic promises. Dont bother add your commercial links again. They will be removed. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not posting this as a product commercial, and you are wrong, this is not an incinerator, it is a disintegrator. There is a big difference, if you care to read the inventors website. I am not posting this as a commercial post, I came across this website while trying to find out where all our garbage goes, and why we have a major crisis in our region and province relating to garbage. While investigating I came across this solution and was very impressed by it. I have seen this inventor speak recently at a town council meeting and was very impressed by his new technology and they way it can change our current issues with garbage. One of the questions posed from many ignorant people was that this was basically an incinerator and if you were there to hear the difference between this inventors machine and an incinerator, you would clearly understand that there is no comparrison. I do also believe that if the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a pattent on this technology then, that is good enough for me, or do you know more than this office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul john kinsella (talkcontribs) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Well, if you are not affiliated with Kearnes, I think you are a very persistent diciple; I checked the website and even watched their promotional movie. It was untrue about other technologies and even invented non-existent problems with then that their "disintegrator" solved. Their website had no discriptions whatsoever about how this marvellous technology worked or performed. But it was said to make use exclusively of off-the-shelf components, but no grate even though it allegedly accepted as diverse waste feeds as grate incineration. Since the video and another Youtube video showed something resembling particularly closely a rotary kiln, I guess such a thing have to be part of their technology. Nothing (except excagerated promises) sugested anything about the process, that was not combustion, gasification or pyrolysis. Some publicly available proof or plausible explanation really should be available before picking up such a bold claim in any encyclopedia. A patent is no guarantee of a serious innovation. One thing is certain, though: It has only been claimed to be operated in a tiny scale (5 t/day) for a few days. The wizards of Kearnes really should tell how and make it plausible why their technology is so revolutionary if they wanted to be taken serious.

Disintegration occurs in all waste processing technologies - even landfill.

I have been in the business too long to be persuaded solely by marketing promises. I hope the above explains to you hat I have given it some serious thought and not just ditch "promising inventions" as a reflex. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough for now. I hope in the near future I will be able to have you retract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul john kinsella (talkcontribs) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Claus![edit]

Hey Claus!

This is Siddhartha from India. I am a Chemical Engineer and have studied Energy Engineering. I am currently working on climate change activities. Good to see your articles and contributions. Would like to know more about your field, university etc.

Sid. Elncid (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sid,

Thanks for the interest. I have added a bit more professional info to my page.

Claus --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Movinggrate.jpg[edit]

File:Movinggrate.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Movinggrate.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Movinggrate.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waste-to-energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flue-gas condensation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • === Efficiency >100 %===

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Claush66. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement![edit]

Hi Claush66, please allow me to get in touch with you because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Claush66. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Boiler efficiency[edit]

In your last edit to cogeneration you said a source stated 13% losses for boilers. Which source are you referring to? I worked around industrial power generation boilers that were 80% efficient, as mentioned in the reference I just added.Phmoreno (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Phmoreno, Thank you for the interest and getting back to me. The source [33] (Trigeneration systems...) is cited for an example balance (45%+40%+13%+2%) summing to 100%. The 13% here are the boiler heat losses (mainly to flue gas). You added 20% from another source so that the sum becomes 120%. I do not have the B&W book that you cite, but in my work with process modelling of mainly WtE and biomass CHP plants, these typically have boiler efficiencies of 85-90% (based on lower calorific value LHV). This supports the 13% in the source. For old plants or in developed countries you can find lower efficiencies of course.

Recent plants (post ~2000) in Scandinavia includes flue gas condensation for additional heat recovrery from the flue gas, reaching 88-96% total efficiency based on the HHV. This can translate to efficiencies exceeding 100% based on LHV. These newer CHP plants are not covered by the example and not even mentioned in the entry, which they probably should. Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)