This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First of all I need to confess, I am no expert on these things. I gather that the efficiency of a normal fossil fuel power plant is about 35%. To me that seems pretty rubbish. I would have thought that on an industrial scale, something better than that could be achieved. Near where I live, there is a big power station operating lots of those huge natural draft wet cooling towers. As you see the clouds of water vapour rising from them, you can not help but be struck by the waste of energy. It could hardly be more in your face!
Using cogeneration, as mentioned in this article, the waste can be reduced. In the 'cogeneration' article, the claim is made that cogeneration can potentially reach an efficiency of about 70%. Nice improvement!
Where it is not practical to use the heat in this way, more work could be got out of it using a stirling engine. I wonder why this is not done?-- JB001 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the same thing as anthro heat. I've restored Atmoz's stuff abot GW William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite my repeated efforts, various editors keep reverting to error-filled versions of this article. Please don't
Please will those responsible revert this themselves, and then desist? Thanks awfully. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it really is time to put this to bed now. They're clearly not synonymous, and I'm not the only editor to have pointed this out. I can't see any rational grounds for refusing to recognise the clear difference between these terms any longer. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to add that CO2 laser treatments of genital warts is not only anthropogenic heat, but does not contribute significantly to GW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.140.138 ( talk) 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a section on animals. Clearly waste, clearly not AH Andrewjlockley ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I merged in AH, making clear that there are subtle and important differences between the two concepts. I am leaving this message not to gripe or whinge, but in the hope that future generations will unearth it and be aware that, with further work, due respect for consensus and process (and doubtless some shouting), the AH section could perhaps one day be considered suitable to live independently once again. As a precaution, I have ritually flagellated myself for making this comment, so please feel no compulsion to invite me to do so again. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved here from Help talk:Reverting. -- John of Reading ( talk) 12:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any such form of heat created by humans that is not waste heat? If so, then why is "anthropomorphic heat" a subheading under "waste heat," and not the reverse?
Anthropomorphic Heat, defined by the American Meteorological Society, should be it's own page; "Waste Heat" should be a sub-heading.
Back in 2009, I created the Anthropomorphic Heat page (and spent a lot of time on it, including the drawing which is not being properly credited to me). My page got hijacked and merged here by the moderator controlling this page at the time. Ultimately, I got banned for arguing with it about this, and it became a subject for a vandalism dispute because that was the moderators only recourse. I gave up.
It's interesting to revisit this page, it's still backwards because cooking a meal, or heating an apartment, with HEAT is not "Waste Heat." Unless every single form of heat created by humans is waste.
I recommend renaming this page and recreating the Anthropomophic Heat page; and making the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.137.64 ( talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Waste heat. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First of all I need to confess, I am no expert on these things. I gather that the efficiency of a normal fossil fuel power plant is about 35%. To me that seems pretty rubbish. I would have thought that on an industrial scale, something better than that could be achieved. Near where I live, there is a big power station operating lots of those huge natural draft wet cooling towers. As you see the clouds of water vapour rising from them, you can not help but be struck by the waste of energy. It could hardly be more in your face!
Using cogeneration, as mentioned in this article, the waste can be reduced. In the 'cogeneration' article, the claim is made that cogeneration can potentially reach an efficiency of about 70%. Nice improvement!
Where it is not practical to use the heat in this way, more work could be got out of it using a stirling engine. I wonder why this is not done?-- JB001 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the same thing as anthro heat. I've restored Atmoz's stuff abot GW William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite my repeated efforts, various editors keep reverting to error-filled versions of this article. Please don't
Please will those responsible revert this themselves, and then desist? Thanks awfully. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it really is time to put this to bed now. They're clearly not synonymous, and I'm not the only editor to have pointed this out. I can't see any rational grounds for refusing to recognise the clear difference between these terms any longer. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to add that CO2 laser treatments of genital warts is not only anthropogenic heat, but does not contribute significantly to GW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.140.138 ( talk) 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a section on animals. Clearly waste, clearly not AH Andrewjlockley ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I merged in AH, making clear that there are subtle and important differences between the two concepts. I am leaving this message not to gripe or whinge, but in the hope that future generations will unearth it and be aware that, with further work, due respect for consensus and process (and doubtless some shouting), the AH section could perhaps one day be considered suitable to live independently once again. As a precaution, I have ritually flagellated myself for making this comment, so please feel no compulsion to invite me to do so again. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved here from Help talk:Reverting. -- John of Reading ( talk) 12:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any such form of heat created by humans that is not waste heat? If so, then why is "anthropomorphic heat" a subheading under "waste heat," and not the reverse?
Anthropomorphic Heat, defined by the American Meteorological Society, should be it's own page; "Waste Heat" should be a sub-heading.
Back in 2009, I created the Anthropomorphic Heat page (and spent a lot of time on it, including the drawing which is not being properly credited to me). My page got hijacked and merged here by the moderator controlling this page at the time. Ultimately, I got banned for arguing with it about this, and it became a subject for a vandalism dispute because that was the moderators only recourse. I gave up.
It's interesting to revisit this page, it's still backwards because cooking a meal, or heating an apartment, with HEAT is not "Waste Heat." Unless every single form of heat created by humans is waste.
I recommend renaming this page and recreating the Anthropomophic Heat page; and making the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.137.64 ( talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Waste heat. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)