Talk:Coal-fired power station

Recent vandalism (section blanking)
Thanks for fixing the vandalism here. I tried to correct some other recent vandalism on this page from this IP address, but some of these edits could not be reverted because of "conflicting intermediate edits." What can we do to fix this? Jarble (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that most of the vandalism has already been corrected, but I just restored another paragraph that was blanked. Jarble (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Smallest economical cogeneration plant?
or anyone,

Do you have a rough idea of the smallest existing cogeneration plant which remains economical to run? Or is it nothing to do with economics but all about country specific pollution limits? I ask because I am trying to find out whether the 11 missing plants in Coal power in Turkey, which are almost certainly under 5MW and built between 1990 and 2010 and used to provide process heat in factories, might still be used. Were coal-fired plants under 1 MW even built this century? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * in theory, one can have any size. if you have a coal-fired stove in a home, for example, one is working with small sizes. utility companies are looking for larger sizes. factories might burn coal for heat. 1mw back up electricity is often powered by diesel fuel.DecarbonizationEngineer (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Combustion technology?
or anyone,

In https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-021-21786-0/MediaObjects/41467_2021_21786_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

the best technology is given as "ultra super critical", followed by "super critical", "sub critical" and "other".

If a plant is described as "circulating fluidized bed" or "combined cycle" how do I find out which of the above combustion technologies it is?

And could somebody link Fluidized bed combustion and Combined cycle power plant properly from this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the chinese define these 4 terms by size (pdf page 5). these terms do not relate to technology. the chinese have some chinese language equivalents and then they translate them to some english words. their use of wording is goofy since these are not "critical" in any way.DecarbonizationEngineer (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not my area of expertise, but I had not previously heard of the term "combined cycle" being applied to a coal-fired plant. The article Combined_cycle_power_plant, states that the most common fuel is gas or liquid fuels, and the first combustion stage takes place in a gas turbine.
 * However, I found this existing article Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) describing gasification of coal to fuel a combined cycle generator, and the history of implementation (mostly wth a US focus). This article should be referenced from the current article.  I also found these sources  and .  The critical point of difference from conventional coal-fired stations is the coal gasification stage. My guess is that coal gasification might only be viable with certain types of coal. I note that the sources indicate this is a costly generation technology because of the high complexity.  Might not be competitive with renewables ? I will see if I can find any more good references. Marshelec (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info both of you. I see this article gets over 300 views a day - which is obviously much more than the Turkey related articles I usually work on. So if you have time it would be great if one of you could write a couple of sentences in this article linking in Fluidized bed combustion and/or Circulating fluidized bed. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Elegance of composition
This is a model of composition. The header puts the subject in wider context. The first paragraph summarizes the current state of affairs, accurately. The second paragraph is a brief, masterful account of transduction of various forms of energy, applicable to all power generation systems. My compliments to all who contributed to this fine essay! Charles Clark (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Charles Clark Ah thanks to the wonders of collaboration - I glued together lots of great stuff from other people. If you have time to fix my mistakes maybe you would like to nominate it for good article as I am pretty sure a reviewer would find many  Chidgk1 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Coal Finance
@Skywatcher68 Please explain in more depth why you deleted the addition on Coal Financing. What was wrong about our sources? Yann.hazebroucq (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires that sources be verifiable, meaning that links to these sources should be provided. Unless I'm mistaken, all of your sources are journals so it should be easy for you to link them. By the way, "our sources" implies that you're sharing your account. Please don't do so.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yann.hazebroucq I have tried to fix the cites to Wikipedia style and have changed the text slightly - it would be good if you could check the current text if you have time Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe when you copied the text from your sandbox you pasted it in to the article using the source editor - unfortunately that editor is not clever enough to avoid duplicate ref numbers.
 * Suggest next time you use the Visual Editor both in your sandbox and when you paste in. I usually first try "automatic" as shown at about 2.15 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Yv9GhoH_w Unfortunately "automatic" sometimes does not work and never with pdfs. So you may sometimes need to copy and paste the url or DOI using "manual" and later run https://citations.toolforge.org/ in the hope it will fill in the rest. Any probs please ask at Teahouse Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)