Talk:Geothermal energy in Turkey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Starting to read the article, will review it in a few days.VR _talk 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1, I'm currently reading the article. Like the other article I GA-reviewed, it feels short. But can you quickly fix this: Geothermal energy in Turkey#Sources. I haven't see other articles on wikipedia have such a section. If you're not sure how best to attribute, maybe we can ask someone.VR _talk 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone else added that - I have moved to talk page Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are some ideas for expansion:

• The article needs a section on environmental impact. If there is none, then say that, but I'm sure there will be some. There's currently only one sentence on "hydrogen sulphide in the air and heavy metals in the water."

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• The section on Research could be expanded. What kind of research and what are its direct applications in Turkey?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• The section on "Financing and public opinion" doesn't talk much about public opinion.

Done (put it in "environmental impact") Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the section on "Carbon-dioxide emissions" a subsection of geology?

Added a couple of sentences - if still unclear please tell me Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Chidgk1, I see that now. But there is a contradiction. The second sentence seems to imply Turkey geothermal power did not increase CO2 emissions but then the third sentence says it does. Can you please resolve that? VR _talk 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

VR _talk 20:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent I was in 2 minds about including the sentence "A European study showing no net increase in CO2 did not include Turkey" - it is a nice study but out of scope and the sentence likely confuses readers - do you think I should relegate it to a footnote? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: when sources contradict each other, WP:NPOV requires we state both of them with attribution. So you can state it like "Sources differ on CO2 emissions by geothermal plants in Turkey. X says A, although Y says B...." BTW, the following sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: "A European study showing no net increase in CO2 did not include Turkey". What did not include Turkey?VR _talk 04:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Amended paragraph to try and make it clearer - if still unclear please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. I still have some suggestions. Research section can be increased significantly more (I say this because wikipedia is built on published RS, and scientific research is an are of active publishing). Here are my suggestions:

• which conferences on geothermal energy are held in Turkey, what are there names?

Done

• what exactly is the research on using geothermal for desalinization? How would that work (would the heat be first converted into electricity or used directly?)? What progress has been made?

Done

• what were the results of induced seismic risk? Is geothermal energy increasing it or is it still safe for Turkey?

Apart from the abstract it is behind a paywall - although I am 99% sure the added risk must be minimal otherwise they would have said in the abstract I cannot really add that without access to the whole paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• what does dry ice have to do with geothermal energy?

Done

@Vice regent: I would love to be able to significantly expand the research section but unfortunately there is not enough funding for geothermal research in this country so there is far less here than in, for example, the US. However I have attempted to clarify the points above and have added some development info. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

VR _talk 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Another point. The lead should include a summary of all the content in the article, so make sure to include things like research and public opinion (even just a sentence or two) in the lead.VR _talk 21:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• What is the significance of this: "However the carbon price in Iceland is the same as the EU Allowance (around 80 euros a tonne in mid-2022),[42] whereas in Turkey it is zero." I think I can guess, but please explain in the article.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Please also explain, expand on ""public finance is more beneficial if it addresses early-stage risks."".

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Who did the World Bank loan $300 million to? The Turkish government? Local governments? Corporations?

Pretty sure not the central government. Probably private companies but could be local government or both. But cannot find any source with details sorry. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Found a doc which gives a little info so added Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• What exactly does this mean: "The Geothermal Power Plant Investors Association said in February 2022 that the interest on lira loans was about 24%, and that it was nonviable to invest at the then feed in tariff (also in lira)"? Can you expand and explain?

I don't properly understand myself however I have added that the feed-in-tariff is updated quarterly and has a USD cap - perhaps they think that the president will not increase the FiT up to the cap every quarter - but I cannot say that as I cannot find a source to confirm my economically illiterate original research. Maybe I should just delete the sentence? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If you yourself don't fully understand what a sentence means then please delete it.VR _talk 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

VR _talk 06:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC) More comments:

• "There are both existing and planned plants in environmentally sensitive areas" what areas are these? Why are they environmentally sensitive?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Clarify this: "that it was nonviable to invest at the then feed in tariff."

VR _talk 23:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted as the feed in tariff must have changed since February so not sure if still true Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for bearing with me Chidgk1. I'm close to finishing this review, just brushing up the history section now and checking some more references. We are close to the finish line! VR _talk 12:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Can you specify when this happened "For plants started between 2010 and 2021 the Renewable Energy Support Scheme feed-in tariff was 10.5 US cent/kWh". I'm asking since its in the history section.VR _talk 09:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent I put it in history because the feed in tariff for new plants is less than that now. Having said that existing plants continue to get that tariff (for 10 years since they started generating if I remember right). So if you like I could move it to a different section or change "was" to "is". Chidgk1 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then you should explain that. Write it like, "In year A, the Turkish government set the feed in tariff at X, but in year B it was lowered to B." And then maybe give a reason for why it was lowered.VR _talk 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Inflation is officially over 70% a year now so I think it would be too much work for future editors to keep lira FiT numbers up to date. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a website with the continually updated figures otherwise I would link to it. However I have explained in the finance section that the figure is updated quarterly. As explained in the finance section although it is capped at UScent8.6 as far as I understand it the president is not obliged to increase it up to the cap at each quarterly review. So in history I have added "In 2021 the feed-in tariff was reduced and changed to lira" - presumably govt thought that would save money but I cannot find any official explanation. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand why "Direct use of heat" section keeps talking about GW, MW etc. I thought direct use of heat doesn't involve conversion to electricity, so what does gigawatt and megawatt refer to?VR _talk 14:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved the wikilink and added a few words in brackets - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is the "Spa in Keramet, Orhangazi" heated geothermally? If so, write that and ideally provide a source for that.VR _talk 14:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: The source given[1] doesn't show anything. Is the link correct?VR _talk 04:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It was correct when I added it - I suspect some unskilled person moved the page without redirecting the old one - have corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a formal review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A lot of good effort has been put into the article. It has been challenging to review as there are not a lot of "Geothermal in X" GAs.

Yes I understand. If you found another ""Geothermal in X" GA please tell me X thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think the issues regarding prose and organization have finally been resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I've read some of the sources, the article appears verifiable. Earwig says copyvio unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is focused and covers all major aspects. Just some clarifications are needed above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images and captions are appropriate and relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Putting this on hold. We are nearly there, please address the remaining comments above. Thanks and good work!VR _talk 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

   I think I have now addressed all the remaining comments - if not please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

   @Vice regent: I hope you are well - do I need to do anything else please? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, passing. Congratulations and thanks for all the hard work! VR _talk 00:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)