Talk:Afşin-Elbistan C power station

Afşin-Elbistan C power station was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 21, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
July 16, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 24, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that if completed, the coal-fired Afşin-Elbistan C power station would emit more than a tenth of Turkey's greenhouse gas emissions?

Current status: Delisted good article

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]