Talk:Afşin-Elbistan C power station

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Afşin-Elbistan C power station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 05:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Starting review. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

1. GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
2. GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
9. GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
12. GACR#2c. No original research.
13. GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
16. GACR#5. Stable.
17. GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright – not applicable.
18. GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions – not applicable.

I'll be using the checklist above to register progress. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I hope you are well - if so please could you write as much detail as possible so that I can improve the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chidgk1. Don't worry, it hasn't failed. I haven't begun this one yet. The symbols above mean "neutral" and indicate no decision reached so far. This is one of several articles I will review this month while the current GAN backlog drive is ongoing. I'm hoping to start it very soon and give you some feedback. I'm fine, thank you, and hope you are too. Keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Review

After a first pass, I have made the following notes which will need attention. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• One big problem is that most of the content of the lead is not discussed in the narrative per MOS:LEAD. The main purpose of the lead is to summarise the narrative so anything in the lead should be expanded upon, or at least repeated, in the narrative.

Amended - if not enough let me know

Looks fine now so meets MOS:LEAD. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Are there any projected dates for completing the construction and starting to operate?

Added to infobox

• The link to "the state-owned generating company (EÜAŞ)" should display the title. Better to say "the state-owned Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ)".

Done

Narrative

• First mention of EÜAŞ in the narrative (i.e., History) section should be to Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ).

Done

• Can you provide anything about the extent to which the Hurman Creek would be diverted?

The water for the plant will come 21 km from the creek but I guess probably only some of the creek's water will be used. But if I understand right the creek itself is being diverted to expose more land for opencast mining. I don't like to write too much about this when I don't understand it clearly myself otherwise I will confuse the readers.

That's fair comment. No problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is Altinelma in the History section the same place as Altunelma in the Location section?

Well spotted - spelling corrected

• Single-sentence paragraphs are deprecated so the content of the Location and Employment sections should be merged into other sections.

Done

• The four sections – History, Location, Mine and Employment – should be combined under a different title because they are really too short to have as full sections. The title could be something like "Planned development".

Done

• Space needed in "Turkey Wealth Fund(TWF)". According to the Turkey Wealth Fund article, the acronym for this organisation is TVF, not TWF.

Corrected the other article - https://www.tvf.com.tr/en/home uses TWF on the English page.

These reviews often lead to issues being found in other articles. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure about this, but there is a redirect called calorific value. Should "average calorific value" link to that?

You are right - but now I found a more specific article and linked to it

• Link first instance of lignite in narrative (as well as in lead).

Done

• I don't see anything in the CarbonTracker report which "concludes that constructing the plant is a waste of money", although the forecasts given are confirmed there.

Removed

• The station is planned to run 6948 hours a year to generate 11380 GWh. Quantities in thousands need commas – 6,948 and 11,380. This applies throughout.

Done. (note that Turkish uses "." as a thousand separator and "," for decimals - thus Turkish quotes)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is the proposed Karakuz Dam to be near Karakuz, Kastamonu? A bit more information about the dam would be useful.

That is a different Karakuz. Added a bit more info.

• Same for the proposed Afşin ring road.

I did not find anything else on this.

That's okay. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• A phrase like "serious employment" needs some explanation with projected numbers of jobs and employees.

Yes it does but that is all the TWF general manager is reported as saying (I just directly translated "ciddi" as "serious").

Citations

Quite a lot of problems with these which need attention:

• Need the name of the publisher (with their location, if possible) in all citations. Publisher is not the same as website.

Done (where known)

• As this is the English WP, need English translation versions of all websites where possible. For example, there is an English version of Elbistanin Sesi.

All foreign titles translated

• All citations referencing online sources need the accessdate parameter filled.

Done (for cite web)

• Citation #10 has no details at all except a name.

Fixed

• Citation #11 is a bare url.

Fixed

• Citation #14 is missing a space and should in any case be an sfn like the Atilgan, Çinar and TurkStat report citations.

Sorry I can't spot the missing space - perhaps you could just add it? Not sure it needs to be an sfn as it is only used once.

• Can't see a citation to the TurkStat CRF entry in the bibliography. If not cited, move this into a further reading section.

Removed as not needed

• Citation #15 to a PDF doesn't give the page numbers, the relevant ones being pp. 9–10. All citations must give page numbers if they can be identified (applies to books, journals, newspapers, PDF, etc.).

Done

• Citation #18 is dated 22 April 2020 and citation #34 is dated 6 March 2020 but it looks like all other full dates are in yyyy-mm-dd format (e.g., 2020-10-05).

Standardized date format

• It would aid maintenance in the edit page if the citations were unpacked a bit by the inclusion of a space before each | symbol. This improves word wrapping and renders the citations more readable, making things easier for future editors.

The cites are mostly generated by the "automatic" function on Visual Editor

On hold

The referencing does need considerable improvement and some restructuring is necessary too. The lead summary issue is important. There is a lot to be done, but I don't think it would be fair to resort to WP:GAFAIL and so I'm putting the review on hold for seven days. If you can let me know when you have finished, I will be happy to review again. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: As you can see I have amended it for the new owner. So if you could take a look again and see whether anything needs improving that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Chidgk1. I'm rather tied up today but hope to look at the article very soon. I'll give it priority when I'm available. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Passed

Hello, Chidgk1. I managed to sort things out sooner than I expected so I've been looking at this and I'm well satisfied. You've put a lot of effort in and I think the article is good to go now, so I'm promoting to GA. Hope the environmental concerns can achieve priority because there are plenty of alternatives to burning heaps of lignite. Anyway, well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Will this powerplant project become legendary?

Honestly, in all my years trying to burn lignite, lignite which is 50% water and 20% ash is not considered to be a fuel by me, this... this project, even if not completed, is already on its way to a legendary status as a monument to human.... ingenuity, should I say? The newspaper picture showing the open pit mine, where barely any lignite was visible...

Think of the ratio of how much water per unit weight of fuel will be necessary for the powerplant, how does that make any sense at all? And how about the decreasing quality of fuel as the better "fuel" runs out? Seriously, I am curious... combustion temperatures? Regenerators? Failing burners and plugged heat exchangers? Ultra levels of corrosion, even on stainless tubes and chamber elements? Does the lignite contain traces of vanadium, so that the sulphur + oxygen + water will burn directly into sulphuric acid? I have seen a SMALL lignite power+heat plant operating, and, it wasn't the happiest business case. There are graphs on how the ash content of coal changes the market value, but with this ash+water content, I can guess its market value may be already negative even without CO2 pricing! A 50-megawatt heat+power plant was hard to manade due to the insane amount of lignite deliverd daily + waste produced that had to be transported and distributed to somewhere, how is that even supposed to be managed, how many trucks and diesel fuel burned needs to be wasted per kWh produced? I'm not having environmental concerns here, I'm just questioning the economic... return on the project at all. It would be an costly experiment at 200MW size, but jumping straight up at 10x of that size seems outright... suicidal. Or: is the project to deliver energy at all, or is the project just for the sake of doing a big construction project? So many technical questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.115.231 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you or anyone else could publish that in a reliable source such as http://www.tmmob.org.tr/en I could add a summary of your criticism to the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CO2 or tonnage calculation errors

C:12 O2:32, CO2:44, C=27.27% in CO2

at the advertised 61 million tonnes CO2, the pure carbon content of the lignite wold be 16.63 million tonnes, which would mean the lignite had 72.33% of carbon content, which, according to the published analysis it doesn't have. I suggest fraud being responsible, or someone used wrong numbers in writing of the official reports. Or someone used numbers for black coal on that one?!?!?!?! Since the suggested content of the lignite were 24% of carbon-based materials, and even that contains hydrocarbons, the amount of lignite transported to the powerplant would have been at least 3.0138x higher at 69.32 million tonnes is the 24% of the lignite was pure carbon, in other words, we would be looking at ~80 million tonnes of mined lignite, with who knows how much waste as well. Or the numbers have been mixed, or made up. Or, the power plant would have been actually operating at a NET ENERGY LOSS. Or more than two thirds of the released CO2 would come even before the lignite would be burned. These are not just some percentage, or rounding errors, but some gross errors of judgement or reporting or fraud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.115.231 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

on the other hand, it is possible that the CO2 number was meant for all three A, B, C blocs? the error is roughly 3x, so, I will assume that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.115.231 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I emailed cinar@cinarmuhendislik.com in 2019 about a previous version of the document as originally they had it 10 times bigger! They then amended it to the present figure. I am not an expert but I was also surprised by the amount. But I could not be bothered to mail them again as I figured they had had their chance to fix it. I don't suspect fraud - as surely any incentive would be to minimize the figure to pass the EIA, not maximize. But it passed the EIA anyway! Hopefully with the recent ratification of the Paris Agreement it is now just of historical interest as I would be very surprised if it is ever built, but if you care to email them I would be interested if you post any reply here. However perhaps a more productive use of your time, if you have time, would be to check whether I have made any mistakes or omitted anything important from Coal power in Turkey. As you are obviously an expert it would be great if you could do the "good article review" I have asked for at Talk:Coal power in Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)