Talk:Navajo Generating Station
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / Arizona||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
The plant consumes 8 million tons of coal, but produces 19.9 million tons of CO2?? How can the plant produce more than three times the amount of CO2 than coal is burned?
Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, oxygen 16. So burning one part of carbon would generate 44/12 of CO2. 8 million tons of carbon should make 29 million tons of CO2, but coal is not pure carbon. Keith Henson (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Reference to the film Koyaanisqatsi having footage of the plant was removed because it, and the link, did not seem to provide any encyclopedic information on the generating station, appearing to serve mainly to promote the film.PR Alma (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Format of quantites
Certain quantities are easier to read and comprehend when written in a conversational format, such as '1.5 million acre-feet' instead of '1,500,000 acre-feet', and '1/2 gallon' instead of '0.5-US-gallon'. These two quantities were changed back to the conversational form after bot conversion, and the SI conversions added manually.PR Alma (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Air quality impacts
Re-entered the first sentence in the ‘Air quality impacts’ section - “Air quality monitoring has not indicated any health impacts from plant emissions.” which had been deleted on the basis that “air monitoring does not measure health impacts”. The reasoning for undoing the delete is that the EPA establishes pollutant level standards designed to protect public health, and does use air quality monitoring to determine if levels in specific areas exceed those standards, i.e. are high enough to cause adverse health impacts. (See EPA NAAQS summary at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.) Conversely then, where the standards are not exceeded, the air quality monitoring does not provide indication of adverse health impacts.
- Please see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility Rule or the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) DeterminationsUnder the Regional Haze Regulations for data on health impacts of visibility improvements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have some serious doubts about the neutrality of this article, which reads like little more than a PR piece--quite fitting, given the user name of the editor who contributed most of the content. Note also that most of the sourcing is primary and/or from government and other associated (and involved) sources. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Low importance stub?
I don't know how importance is decided, but i guess this be a great candidate to replace with a non-coal plant. I'm going to add a link to a recent NPR piece about the plant if it isn't there yet. [unsigned, undated comment by IP]
- See http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24082015/power-plants-indian-reservations-get-no-break-emissions-rules Not sure how that fits in with the previous BART agreement, but while the Navajo Nation might qualify as a state and obtain some relief, they are in trouble. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
a tourist's observation
I visited the region as a tourist last June (2015) and noted that all three NGS smokestacks were emitting a thick brownish yellow smoke. The whole Glen Canyon area lay in this smog, visibilty was very poor. I got the impression that the plant does not use any filters at all (all German power plants that I've ever seen emit white smoke - water vapour that may be more or less poluted, but never has that color). I am a layman who cannot contribute any measurable facts. But I can determine that the pictures used in the Wikipedia article have nothing much to do with the sight the plant presented last June. Bernd Harmsen, Germany --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Net capacity factor
Replying to definition request that was entered in the Performance section of the article December 5, 2016: [There needs to be a definition of "net" capacity factor. Also, 16952/18272=92.6% CF, not 86%].
“Net” refers to the plant output sent out through the transmission lines - the gross energy from the generator minus the energy used internally for plant operation. The net capacity factor is the actual energy output divided by the amount of energy the plant would put out if run at design capacity continuously throughout the year. The calculation takes the form: annual net generation / (net nameplate capacity x total hours per year).
Using the 2011 values in this article, the net capacity factor calculation is :
It is suggested that the definition can be left out of the text of the article since it is explained here and in the “Capacity factor” article, which is linked in the subject sentence.PR Alma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)