Talk:Kogan Creek Power Station

Solar boostng
Is this power station not solar boosted?

I wonder if wikipedia has a list of world wide solar boosted fossil fuel power plants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podraigporridge (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Power station emission estimates
I intend to insert this paragraph which is a slightly amended version of the paragraph deleted previously:

CARMA estimates this power station emits 4.33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year as a result of burning coal. Greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change and global warming. The IPCC says that developed countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020 and by 80 to 95% by 2050. . The Australian government has announced a target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 60% from 2000 levels by 2050. because of the harmful effects of global warming on Australia. The Australian Government has announced the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commencing in 2010 which is expected to impact on emissions from coal fired power stations over the medium term.

CARMA is a reliable source for an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions. To the best of my knowledge it is the body with the most experience in estimating such emissions world wide. It is not a lobbying organisation and would lose it's tax deductible status in the US if it were to lobby according to representatives of CARMA. It is an initiative of an independent think tank in US that is sufficiently credible to have tax deductible status. While the estimates have been subject to some criticisms, they are the best estimates I have been able to find. For more detail on CARMA and its methodology see: http://carma.org/blog/about/

The second sentence stands on its own and is referenced by reliable sources.

The third sentence stands on its own and is referenced by reliable sources.

The fourth sentence also stands by itself and is referenced to a Wikipedia article referenced to Australian government sources.

There is a consensus on the Scientific opinion on climate change among national and international scientific bodies. All developed countries other than the US have signed the Kyoto Protocol recognising the importance of Greenhouse gas emissions: List of Kyoto Protocol signatories

A similar edit to that intended here will also be relevant to other articles on coal fired power stations in Australia dinghy (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support your additions but others will probably remove it because the Australian estimates are deduced from statistics and apparently that is not reliable. My understanding of research, field studies and surveys is that statistical models are often used. I imagine that there are many sources used as references in Wikipedia that are based on statistical estimates and I can't see anything specific at WP:RS. I'm not sure if a consensus has been reached previously on this so I've posted a question at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at the suggested edit, firstly remove commentary that isnt relevant: ''CARMA estimates this power station emits 4.33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year as a result of burning coal. Greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change and global warming. The IPCC says that developed countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020 and by 80 to 95% by 2050. . The Australian government has announced a target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 60% from 2000 levels by 2050. because of the harmful effects of global warming on Australia. The Australian Government has announced the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commencing in 2010 which is expected to impact on emissions from coal fired power stations over the medium term. ''

That leaves us with after slight rewording:

''CARMA estimates this power station emits 4.33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year as a result of burning coal, greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change. The Australian Government has announced the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commencing in 2010 which is expected to impact on emissions from power stations.''

The next point is sourcing why would we use a lobby groups estimates when there are reliable publications from Australian Government sources readily available: National Pollutant Inventory, dept of Climate change Greenhouse Gas emission Monitoring. Gnangarra 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time to address my post above. The national pollutant inventory does not give CO2 for the power station, only CO1 My searching of  similarly did not have a result that indicated it had specific GHG emissions figures for this power station, although I did not open and read every result, just the first one. On this basis I believe that individual figures are not available and CARMA has the best available estimate. I note again that CARMA advises that it is not a "lobby" group in the technical sense in the US, please see above, so I assume you are using the term loosely. As CARMA is the only available figure I can see I will use it and that means I have to add the reference to stay within WP policy.  If you find a source for actual emissions I would gladly adopt and reference that in preference to CARMA. I would also advise CARMA of the source so they can use actuals in place of estimates which is their stated policy. dinghy (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC) (Phanly)


 * I reverted this hadnt been resolved. I questioned CARMA as a source, I had reworded to remove unnecessary information from the first suggested edit, I dont agree with the use of CARMA for reasons previously stated and the rewrite was in no way an endorsement of or a recommendation as an appropriate edit. Gnangarra 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I used your wording. I searched your recommended sources which don't provide any actual figures for CO2. I posted the results of that research on this talk page and on your user page. There are, to the best of my knowledge having done the research you suggested, no actuals available. I am not aware of any other independent estimates available. That makes CARMA the best available source of estimates for individual power stations. Given that there is specific government policy about reduction of GHGs the emissions of a power station are relevant to an article on that power station. I note the comments of Shiftchange on your user page about including estimates as they have not been able to find actuals either. I note the posts at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and will update for the results of the reseach done into the sources you provided. dinghy (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

This is easy - credit CAMRA with raising the issue, but state that the amount of CO2 emitted by this station as a fact based directly on the amount of coal it uses (one ton coal = 44/12 or 3.67 tons CO2 if my maths is right and it's burning anthracite, a bit less CO2 if burning "dirty" coal). TomRawlinson (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Making a calculation like this is original research, crediting it to someone else is a violation of Verifiability. Gnangarra 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At Reliable sources/Noticeboard based on new info posted there Itsmejudith (talk has accepted that CARMA, an initiative of CGD, is a reliable source and can be used if no official data is available. The board of CGD includes very notable people, there has been no criticism of V2 of CARMA found, CARMA invites updates, CARMA updated to V2 afteron criticism from Performeks LLC on its website http://www.climatedataduediligence.org/reports.aspx . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanly (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kogan/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kogan Creek Power Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csenergy.com.au/power_stations/ps_kogancreek.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512155835/http://www.siemens.com.au/files/NewsCentre/2010/SS/Documents/case_kogancreek_070510.pdf to http://www.siemens.com.au/files/NewsCentre/2010/SS/Documents/case_kogancreek_070510.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204015022/http://www.csenergy.com.au/userfiles/file/Kogan%20Creek%20Solar%20Boost%20fact%20sheet%20-%2029%20August%202012.pdf to http://www.csenergy.com.au/userfiles/file/Kogan%20Creek%20Solar%20Boost%20fact%20sheet%20-%2029%20August%202012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)