The content of Fly ash was merged into Coal combustion products on 13 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Which type of combustion product was released in the Tennessee coal sludge spill? Badagnani (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it--fly ash. Badagnani (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged this article with the bias and advertisement tags, since it reads like a promotional brochure for the use of coal byproducts. A neutral article under this title should deal with the chemical products of coal combustion and their environmental effects, rather than just the ways that a few of them can be industrially recycled. --FOo (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened. In August 2010, in a series of edits, a single-purpose account replaced neutral content with the promotional current content. I'll revert that now. :) --FOo (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is laser-focused on coal at present. A merge without redirect should be done to clear out the "fly ash" heading for general flue gas ash purposes. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merge completed

@Artoria2e5: I've added a redirect for now, but think that the idea of then writing a separate "fly ash" page for general flue gas ash purposes is fine. Feel free to write one. Klbrain (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that fly ash can be a replacement for cement. Not sure that is true. Did the author mean 'partial replacement'?

Fly ash is a good admixture to cement allowing for reduced percentage of cement to be used. However, Portland cement contains at least 60% CaO, whereas fly ash contains at best around 25% CaO (from sub-bituminous coals) and can be much lower, and is therefore too low to completely replace the majority of cements.

Suggest that the author consider a redrafting of this section. Jerryjoynson (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 21 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anonymoustrib (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sbuett.

— Assignment last updated by MethanoJen (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there seem to be a lack of citations. First section in the introduction has almost no references. In the "Fly Ash" section there is only 1 reference. Needs citations under "Chemical composition and classification." Needs citation under section "Disposal and market sources," where the article discusses 'environmental and health concerns that... industrialized countries like the United States." Missing a lot of references in the Reuse section. There are 0 citations in the Soil stabilization section. Could benefit from a restructuring of the Environmental Impacts, and I don't think there is need to break it up by individual states. Adding perspectives from other countries in their approach to using CCPs and any impacts they've experienced will improve the reach of this article.Anonymoustrib (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I made up 'Dashical' on the model of 'parenthetical'.

The section

==Fly ash==

starts

Fly ash, flue ash, coal ash, or pulverised fuel ash (in the UK)—plurale tantum: coal combustion residuals (CCRs)—is a coal combustion product

The dashes seem oddly placed. The words between the dashes seem oddly combined.

I want to start the section with

Fly ash, also called flue ash, coal ash, pulverised fuel ash (in the UK), or (plurale tantum) coal combustion residuals (CCRs) is a coal combustion product

Barring objections and my laziness, I will make the change

72.78.138.69 (talk)
72.78.138.69 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]