Talk:Longannet power station

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Operational Losses?[edit]

The difference between installed capacity of 2400 MW and declared net capacity of 2304 MW is (at 4%) quite respectable for a plant of this type. Auxiliary power consumption of subcritical coal-fired plant is typically in the range 6 to 8%. The phrase "operational losses" implies a problem, while this is not the case. I suggest changing the wording.--Graham Proud (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change this to "plant overheads", which is usually understood to include everything such as pumps and fuel feed systems, control and protection instrumentation, office lighting, heating and air con, staff canteen, and everything else that uses electricity on site. 4% does seem a bit low.

Tiger99 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MWth and MWe[edit]

also posted at Talk:Watt#MWth and MWe

This is a case where the strict usage SI units differs from usage in the electricty industry. As a worker in the UK electricity industry (and having also worked in the North American electricity industry, I recognise MWth and MWe, whilst W_th and MW_e are alien to me. --Stewart^(talk) 08:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My background is in nuclear, and it is normal there to use MWe as the electrical power output to the grid, which is of course much less than the reactor thermal power, or the boiler thermal power in a coal fired station, MWt or MWth. In both cases the thermal efficiency is similar, due to the physics of the Rankine cycle. See Watt.

Tiger99 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most powerful generating station in Scotland[edit]

This is not the case, Peterhead Power Station has a larger installed capacity. Peterhead cannot run at full capacity due to grid restrictions but it still has far more generating capacity. 161.12.7.4 (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Peterhead, according to its Wikipedia entry, is rated at 2177 MWe, Longannet is 2304 MWe. Tiger99 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling Towers[edit]

"Like all other power stations in Scotland it lacks cooling towers, relying instead on river water as a coolant." This is incorrect, I know of at least 1 station (Fife Power Station near Ballingry) which has cooling towers (it is not near a river) so I have changed the word "all" to "most". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.12.7.4 (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Island and ash lagoons[edit]

The referenced article is just plain nonsense, and reproducing its errors here is not appropriate. Preston Island was very small, and contained 3 coal mine shafts and some small salt pans. See [[1]]. The map does not lie. Any salt pans on Preston Island would be filled by Longannet's output in a few hours. The ash lagoons are in fact enclosed by an artificial embankment, constructed at the time that the power station was built. The Wikipedia entry for Preston Island correctly states the facts, using this source [[2]]. I will make the correction. Tiger99 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass and gas co-firing[edit]

We have in the info-box the details that Longannet could co-fire gas and biomass. I came here wanting to verify word-of-mouth that Longannet's emissions could be lower because it could run alternatively on gas. It would be helpful if the article cleared up the exact meaning of "co-firing" - how much of the station's fuel could have come from gas and/or biomass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.119.119 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generators[edit]

Only two 300MW generators are mentioned in the article. This is incorrect, obviously. 2A00:23C6:310F:E101:3C4C:BE71:B60E:EAE8 (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]