Talk:List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey

Çırpılar power station

Perhaps not worth creating an article for https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%C3%87%C4%B1rp%C4%B1lar_power_station yet? If creating can link to EIA http://eced.csb.gov.tr/ced/jsp/ek1/8551# Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

ÇATES

May need adding again soon according to press reports http://www.pusulagazetesi.com.tr/milletvekili-acikladi-10-gun-icinde-aciliyor-147253-haberler.html Chidgk1 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Alpu EIA

http://eced.csb.gov.tr/ced/jsp/ek1/19097 approved according to "EÜAŞ Yatırımcılar, sigortacılar ve bankalar için bilgi notu" and english equiv from europe beyond coal

licences

Autoproducer licences were discontinued years ago https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=18985&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5

Questions

I understand that the temporary licenses are the same number as the permanent licenses but as far as I can tell the 2020 end date is not shown in the licence list. Is that just because the officials have higher priorities at the moment than keeping the licence database up to date?

I cannot find Tunçbilek on the generation list. Is that my incompetance or because the officials have higher priorities at the moment than keeping the generation database up to date?

Is there any information on the ramp up and ramp down maximum speeds?

Is there any info on minimum load?

Is it only the lignite fired stations which have dispatch priority or do the imported coal stations also have priority? Is there an official document specifying priority?

Do the companies which own the power stations have contingency plans for what to do if central or local government tries to impose stricter environmental rules? For example I read that in the USA a power company is subsidising purchase of electric school buses - would that be a good move here?

Are power stations paid properly for ancillary services such as spinning inertia?

Chidgk1 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Keeping this list in step with other articles and lists

@Pppery: - and I hope others comment on this too

The link in the comment to the undo on 20th July was a bit long to read completely but I see by reading right at the bottom that the problem is now resolved.

Articles in the English Wikipedia on individual coal-fired power stations in Turkey, such as Kangal power station, pick up the info in the infobox automatically from Wikidata (and surprisingly there are also a few in Norwegian - and their infobox works similarly). So that future editors make changes in fewer places (for example I would not be surprised if there were more changes of ownership later this year) I think it would be useful for the structured data in this list to also come from Wikidata. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that doing so puts the article into Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. I am reverting to the last stable version until we reach consensus here that there are no problems with the proposed approach. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose that if a list exists in a non-English Wikipedia the corresponding English list should be allowed to use Wikidata for its tables. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1 RfC is a reasonable tool to use to get further insight that might help to break your deadlock here, but the manner in which you have formatted this one is problematic, and you'll want to review WP:RfC to correct these shortcomings before further comments are made, if you want to facilitate consensus here and make sure that any outcome is regarded as valid. For one thing, your proposal is overbroad: a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here can determine only what ought to be done for this list/article. If you want to make your proposal relevant to all articles of a certain type, you would need to gain support for this on the talk page of a relevant policy or guidelines (be aware that, because of the WP:Advice pages principle, a WikiProject connected to the subject matter will not suffice and if you want the rule to apply to all pages of a certain type, you need to get that support on a policy page or wider community discussion page (like WP:VPP). If you want this rule to apply to literally any list article, you would need to go even further and make a large scale community discussion and advertise it widely (again, VPP would be the ideal place for any such discussion.

Additionally, even if you only want a consensus outcome for this article, your prompt still needs some work. You need to provide enough detail and context for respondents to be able to easily identify the issues and begin to consider the possible solutions, without trawling through the previous talk page discussions just to understand the basics of the editorial difference of opinion. You should provide a brief summary of the issue and not just your own prescribed solution, but also any other positions (whether they are alternative solutions or just opposition to your solution), being careful to be neutral in terms of presenting those alternatives, describing them in a fashion similar to how their proponents would. Without the changes in the first paragraph above, it is likely this RfC will be closed as invalid and without the changes above in this second paragraph, you are unlikely to get a significant amount of useful feedback to help resolve the issue. I hope this is of some help to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I remember this is the first time I have done an RfC. Thanks for clarifying. I have moved it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_if_a_list_exists_in_a_non-English_Wikipedia_the_corresponding_English_list_should_be_allowed_to_use_Wikidata_for_its_tables

Snow Rise Have I messed up the procedure by moving the template? Do I need to change something at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_proposals or would it be simpler to delete it and raise it again? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Link to the archived withdrawn RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RfC: if a list exists in a non-English Wikipedia the corresponding English list should be allowed to use Wikidata for its tables - withdrawn as badly worded --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

new source

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2132178-lira-weakness-weighs-on-turkish-coal-generation-margins

How the Turkish Wikipedia list is kept up to date

Hello Marshelec and others,

For info I explain here how I am keeping tr:Türkiye'deki kömür yakıtlı enerji santralleri listesi up to date. I suspect the rate of change in the list items is likely to be slow this decade. In other words I guess very few coal-fired plants will be built or retired in the 2020s. But I hope I am wrong and that the most polluting get shut down. Either way I think it is useful to add the generation quantities and every year because then readers can easily calculate the capacity factor of each plant. Similarly the annual capacity payments show some of the money being spent by the government to support large plants.

As the number of items in the list is not too many I have not (yet) automated getting the data from https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/uretim/gerceklesen-uretim/gercek-zamanli-uretim.xhtml but simply copy and paste it from there into the entry for each plant on Wikidata. I may attempt to automate this when the 2021 annual generation data becomes available.

Similarly so far I have just copied the monthly capacity payments from https://www.teias.gov.tr/tr-TR/kapasite-mekanizmasi-odeme-listeleri into my own spreadsheet to total them for a year and then pasted them into Wikidata for each plant.

Listeriabot runs regularly on Turkish Wikipedia to copy new data from Wikidata. That is why this list is out of date compared to tr:Türkiye'deki kömür yakıtlı enerji santralleri listesi

If anyone would like more details please ask. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be split?

Copied the below from Marshelec talk page so watchers of this page will know and can hopefully also comment:

"My initial suggestion is to split this article and move almost all the narrative content into Coal-fired power stations in Turkey (or similar title), so that the list article is just a list of power stations. I know that might perhaps break some citation links if there are things in the narrative that are also referenced from the list, but I think it is worthwhile. If you agree with this approach, I will create an article in draft namespace that we can work on together, copying content from the existing list article. The narrative content would be reviewed and improved if required, and an improved summary could be written. From that point, we would publish the draft article into mainspace, and in turn, the summary can be copied up into the Electricity sector in Turkey, with the parent-child link changed to the new article. What do you think?"

Ah I see like Coal power in the United States is separate from List of coal-fired power stations in the United States. I would say yes, because I am unlikely to go through the hassle of trying again to get permission to run Listeria bot on the article or update the list manually so will not attempt "featured list" again. Whereas with the unstructured text split off I could hopefully work Coal power in Turkey up to GA. Unless anyone can see disadvantages I think the unstructured text is already enough for me to put it straight into a new article without bothering with draft. If split where should we put the map? Another alternative would be to move the unstructured text into Coal in Turkey. On reflection that might be better I think as it would be more integrated. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Coal in Turkey is already quite long (>4,000 words). Adding detailed content about particular coal-fired power station projects, or electricity-related topics could make it overly long, would make it less concise, and seems unnecessary. (Although of course there are obvious linkages between coal extraction/import and electricity generation that must be maintained). If a new article is created about coal-fired electricity generation, then some well written summary content from that new article could be included in two related articles Coal in Turkey, and Electricity sector in Turkey. Having an article specifically covering coal-fired electricity generation would make it easier to maintain each of those two related articles, and would also simplify the list article. There are no perfect solutions, but given the significance of the coal-fired electricity generation topic, my opinion is that it is well worthwhile to create a new article about coal-fired electricity generation, and remove almost all the narrative content from the list article.Marshelec (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

OK I split it (was not sure about map - any suggestion?) and created Coal power in Turkey. Hopefully I will update it soon but feel free to get stuck in to either article as you wish.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Where to put "Circulating fluidized bed" on Wikidata?

Marshelec Thanks for your reply on another talk page. The combined cycle power plant I was asking about is Çan-2. But now I see the cite I used to say that it is combined cycle has been removed from the web. So maybe the cite was wrong - I will remove the statement.

On Wikidata I am usually setting the "powered by" property to "subcritical", "supercritical" or ultra-super critical".

There are a lot I have described on Wikidata as "powered by" Circulating fluidized bed. But looking at the CFB article it seems that these could be either subcritical or supercritical or ultrasupercritical. So maybe there is a different Wikidata property I should put "circulating fluidized bed" in or maybe I should just delete it as not important? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

For detailed structured data about coal-fired power stations, it is important to separate the combustion technology from the boiler/steam technology. A fluidized bed is a combustion technology, but subcritical or supercritical or ultrasupercritical are boiler/steam cycle technologies. See: Supercritical steam generator. The combustion and steam technologies are matched by the power station designer, but they are separate parameters. Combined cycle describes a power station configuration - the combination of a combustion turbine and a steam turbine, so this is another parameter again. I am unsure about the merits of capturing these parameters for thermal power stations in Wikidata, and also unsure about how much of this information is readily available to populate the data fields. However "powered by" seems capable of too many inconsistent interpretations. It could even mean the fuel.Marshelec (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for info - so I think it is more important to put boiler tech on Wikidata than combustion tech, because boiler tech helps determine which are retired first. So if in future I find out what boiler tech they use I will put that as priority over whether they are CFB or not. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible enhancement

Wikidata query to estimate CO2 by company - would need to add EFs to wikidata and presumably have a cutoff size - could this be done in a table of the main companies Chidgk1 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If difficult to automate could just do manually with footnote to show how calculated Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)