Talk:List of largest power stations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Road to FL status[edit]

Hi all. Bringing this list to Featured List status has been an old project that I have never been able to accomplish. As we now have quite a bunch of active folks working on this page, I think that goal is now more reachable. :) I have outlined some basic to-do stuff to bring this closer to FL:

Criteria[edit]

  1. Every coordinates should have a |name= parameter in use, so that the GeoGroup template can give out meaningful results. (The parameter should be the power station name)
  2. Coordinates should not be overly precise. (no decimals)
  3. Increase top-5 lists to 10 each, and the main top-10 list to 20. The "largest by country" table below will be quite large, dwarfing the tables that are the main purpose of this article. Increasing the limits would also make the page look more "richer".
  4. Each entry/row in tables must be referenced. A difficult task, but a requirement for FLs.
  5. A quality image for each largest-by-type section, preferable the image of the largest plant
  6. Notes should be placed at the end of each related section, instead of all the way down at the end of the page.

If anyone is interested and have some spare time, feel free to pitch in! Also do remember to update the related external list while you do so (for example, when updating the coal section, one could also easily update entries in List of coal power stations at the same time). Best regards, Rehman 13:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awesome! I will be doing spontaneous edits on this page in order to update information and add references. – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need for the top-10 list to grow to 20 - it will be essentially duplicated in the "largest by country" table at the bottom, when you sort by Plant Capacity.--Graham Proud (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but in that case, the whole top section is a duplicate. In addition to the current "electricity generation" and "fuel type", maybe we could also add "Region" (for wikilinking) to make it more unique? IMO, the top section should be bigger, to make it more significant than the others. Just my opinion. Rehman 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will recant: the DEFAULT order of the (now) Top20 list is SIZE, while the DEFAULT order of our current focus is COUNTRY. It is only when you click on Plant Capacity to sort by size that the lists will look similar. The two lists serve completely different purposes.--Graham Proud (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a little bit of work and a lot of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that the two lists are VERY different. In particular, consider countries with several large plants, like Brazil, China and South Korea, each with two entries in the Top 10. These countries will only get ONE entry in the List of largest within each country.--Graham Proud (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the reasoning between having the largest power station in each country list include the one with the largest generator as well? It think generator size is important but not as much as overall capacity within the scope of the article. Grand Coulee Dam has almost twice the capacity of Palo Verde.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reasoning, apart from fatigue-induced error. I must have been nodding off!--Graham Proud (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... fatigue and Wikipedia...I think having the list strictly by installed capacity would fit the scope better. A separate list of largest single generators in the world could work as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

I have found the following sources to be helpful:

--Graham Proud (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about adding a year as a [note] to an annual energy production, since that number is different every year. Else we can add another row for a year of the data, so it is easier to know if it is old or new. Also what about adding that kind of map for top 20 power plants? On the other hand: check how amazing stuff looks in that link, they show reactors by the type and if it is in operation, building or closed. Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IndustCards, although helpful, can be unreliable. The Global Energy Observatory is a tertiary source although I have never found it to be wrong. The links at the bottom of each page are often good reliable sources. I am somewhat familiar with the power company websites for various countries if you ever need help with a specific one.--NortyNort (Holla)22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the assessment of IndustCards, but I have viewed the whole thing positively and cooperatively: I have sourced a huge amount of information from there, and I just LOVE the pictures - they make it come alive for me - so when I find an error I let him know. I think maps in general are a great idea - I have started adding them to the power station lists for the states of Australia - but I would need to hear more about the purpose of a map in this context. Certainly, as I have said, in the context of a geographical list like the states of Australia, the purpose is clear...but what is the benefit of a map in a Top 20 in the world list? I think it would just make for more maintenance, and therefore impact on the long-term quality of the article as information degrades with time.--Graham Proud (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, IndustCards is great, and is mostly reliable. I too have suggested corrections to them, and have some of my photos there. Regarding the map, I initially was leaning towards not having such a map. But looking at that delicious white space created by the TOC, I think we could easily fit a map there. Of course, the map wouldn't really serve much purpose, but it would be a nice cosmetic addon. I will add the map on trial basis to see how it fits (we can always remove it if it's not nice). Rehman 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aging data[edit]

  • The top list of power stations is constantly updating. When checking one of the links in Suggestions, it looks like we are missing 4 new powerful power stations in Top 20. I would be reworking Top 20 in the following days. Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of capacity numbers aren't matching with the linked wikipedia articles and/or are outdated. Further fact-checking is needed. – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors often change the capacities within the articles and the lists are never changed in response. Often though, there are small edit wars over some capacities in articles. I try to keep it up to date on the hydro side.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

  • References 1–50 were quick-checked (10 of them found to be dead and 1 which linked to unrelated car blog, all of them have been marked as [dead link]). Some of references are in non-english language and will be later marked as (in *language*). –Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Just one suggestion, it would actually be better to update the refs then-and-there instead of marking as dead. That would save us from going through the whole bunch of dead links again to update. Or another option would be to remove the dead links right away, that would make it easier to spot those that needs refs. Rehman 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're a hard task master, Rehman, but you make eminent good sense!--Graham Proud (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Rehman 17:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All dead references (that were found) removed, some broken links will be later fixed (or else removed). –Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top 10 expanded to 20, Largest Facilities almost done, apart from coordinates and references.--Graham Proud (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in Country: List Criteria[edit]

I have a few more countries of interest to add (Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, DRC) but before we add any more countries I wanted to check on the criteria for inclusion. I looked at the top 40 or 50 countries by GDP and Population. --Graham Proud (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I am heartbroken because a valued team member has added a country WAY down both GDP and Population lists: Lithuania is #84 on GDP and #138 on population. Does anyone have any suggestions for criteria, to improve on my Top 50 by GDP or Population. (My home country Australia fails on the population criteria (#51) but walks it in on GDP (#12)). To understand criteria I guess I should tell you my thinking on the purpose of the list. I hope you don't mind me being a little crass, but here's a statement on investment in infrastructure: "Grow some balls and build a BIG power station!" Looking at the list now, it is quite stark that there are some countries who have over many decades chosen to invest in energy infrastructure (China, India, USA, France, Brazil, Poland) and those who have not (Rwanda, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Ethiopia ... reasons for this are another issue!) I am concerned that if we simply add all the countries of the world, this message will not be quite so obvious. The parameter of "Installed Generating Capacity" is related to this of course. As an example please see this list of countries - only 20!--Graham Proud (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more reasonable to make it a top 50 countries by electricity/energy consumption (or by electricity production, since electricity is also exported), if that list is easy to find of course, else it would be a waste of time to search for one. But reasonably the GDP shows how industrialised the country is and can go sort of parallel with energy consumption/production. Would like to hear your thought – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Georgij, let's keep the dialog open for a few days to see what others think. In the meantime, I think Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland are missing from our list. I'm just sayin'.
I think that the top 50 should be based on this list. P.S: Nr 39 – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list Georgij, but I am unsure about using a criteria that would explicitly eliminate many from my target group. (I say "my" only because it is unclear to me whether you, Rehman, or anyone else is thinking the way I am.) Wandering on from the link you provided, I have developed a list of 60 countries that are EITHER top 50 GDP OR top 50 population. The countries we would need to add on this basis are: Algeria, Austria, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, Romania, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan. (Rwanda and Qatar would both be eliminated as they doesn't meet any of the criteria, not even yours. I was interested in these as they sit on the extreme ends of the spectrum of electricity consumption per person per year.) I am interested in your thoughts.--Graham Proud (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Burman and Quatar doesn't even have a list of power stations. Rwanda has a station with just 28 capacity, that is almost 10 times lower than the next lowest. And compare that to Taiwan, Austria, Greece and others. You see what I mean?
To me this list is about power stations and it should be based on what power stations do – electricity production.
Also here is a power station in small Singapore – Senoko. On their website they say they have a 3300 installed capacity. – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting topic. I share the same concerns stated above. But looking into it deeper, I am leaning towards two options: Either the top 100/whatever countries (UN member/observer states?) with the highest installed capacity. Or all countries (again, UN member states?), this would make the list more interesting (and huge!) and avoids any potential disputes. The latter would mean the table being twice as large... We also could add all 206 states (disputed or not), making it probably the most comprehensive list of it's kind on the internet (of course, sourcing it will be a pain in the backside). Opinions? Will post a more comprehensive reply if have the time. Great work both! Best regards, Rehman 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty difficult decision here. I fear top 50 from the Factbook would exclude low countries like Zimbabwe with Kariba Dam (1300 MW). Using UN member states would leave out places like Taiwan which has a few rather large power stations. If we need a scope, I think the Factbook is the best way to do it. Either way there will be sacrifice. We could set a minimum capacity as well, like 50 MW. Does FL criteria require a specific scope for every list within a list?--NortyNort (Holla) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should just vote. –Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...please see voting table below. In the meantime, given that we are talking about increasing not decreasing the list, I will go ahead and add the Algeria/Austria/.../Switzerland/Taiwan entries suggested above.--Graham Proud (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in Country: List Vote[edit]

Motion: 60 countries that are EITHER top 50 GDP OR top 50 population
Explanation: (1) Keep list relatively small, to aid our objective in achieving FL status quickly. (2) Adding all the countries of the world would introduce meaningless outliers. Of course very small countries have little infrastructure. (3) Using installed capacity or electricity consumption as the criteria explicitly eliminates noteworthy countries--Graham Proud (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote FOR Vote AGAINST Comment
--Graham Proud (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] As per my explanation
– Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] For list based on GDP or on electricity production
--NortyNort (Holla) 01:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] No perfect solution but this one is most fitting.
Sign here Or sign here

Number format[edit]

In the interests of complying with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers we are doing a minor clean-up...--Graham Proud (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the ordinals be as follows? --YaguraStation (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rank Station Capacity (MW)
1. Tuoketuo 6,720
2. Dangjin 6,040
3. Taichung 5,500
4. Bełchatów 5,102
5. Yeongheung 5,080
6. Taean 5,050
10. Guodian Beilun 5,000
10. Waigaoqiao 5,000
10. Guohua Taishan 5,000
10. Jiaxing 5,000

Question[edit]

Hello, I dont understand what capacity means... How do you convert this to MWh? --2A01:112F:742:C00:6530:DC69:A9E2:B644 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity is how much power can be produced in a second.
MWh (megawatt hour) is how much power is produced for a number of hours (MW x no. of hours)
1 MWh is 1 MW running consistently for one hour, or 1 x 60 MW. 2 MWh is either 1 MW running for 2 hours or 2 MW running for an hour.
Considering this reply took nearly 3 years, I imagine you probably found this out already. AntColony.555 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Types clean-up[edit]

While most of the types listed are OK, some of them are marginal or just subtypes. Some of them can be deleted or at least reduced to the top 5 only. Here are some types for discussion:

  • oil shale - marginal type, reduce to top 5
  • peat - marginal type, reduce to top 5
  • concentrator photovoltaic - delete, subtype of photovoltaic
  • wave - delete, very marginal, prototypes only

Any thoughts? Jklamo (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Countries missing[edit]

Where is Ireland? Any others not there? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 14:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baihetan plant[edit]

As of yesterday, Baihetan hydropower plant is finally completed. It is the second largest hydro power plant in the world and I think it's safe to say also the second largest power generating plant in the world too. The article needs to be updated to reflect that. [1] [2]49.179.35.5 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Baihetan 16,000 MW is second in the world right now.
Also to point out is that Xiangjiaba Dam is 7,750 MW right now , not 6,448 MW.
The article needs to be updated. 2001:B011:C040:3FFD:28C5:231D:CABB:BDBC (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as the largest under construction power station is hydroelectric Baihetan Dam (16,000 MW).
Since Baihetan Dam is already completed , so this part need an updated. 2001:B011:C040:2C3D:989B:6271:875:3A3C (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery boilers[edit]

Biomass section seems woefully outdated, since it has only two recovery boilers (black liquor)

I think plants using black liquor should be removed from list, or put into separate list as they are not true power stations at all. 93.106.135.201 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_power_stations&oldid=1214554763"