Talk:Drax Power Station

Drax Power Station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 5, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Drax Power Station is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

CCS Capacity

Article lists 626 MW as the capacity post-CCS. However, the link (currently ref 17) specifies 448MW "gross output", and the nearest snapshots on the wayback machine to when the link was credited specified "up to 450 MW". Where has 626 MW come from?

Photo

Anybody got a photo? Edward 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a photo taken on a very cold day. Possibly I can get a better one in summer!!!--Harkey Lodger 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Removed 's' from 'power stations' in section "Environmental Effects" so second sentence is grammatically correct: but potentially the sentence should read "However, it is still one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power stations in the UK...". Can't tell as no ref. Also as no ref, should perhaps del whole sentence anyway! But makes section balanced and prob fair: Drax are hardly pushing electricity on consumers.

Robert Crowdy 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Environmental Effects" section appears biased, As claims of being largest polluter are not balanced due to the fact that it is the largest Coal power station in UK, Thus it pollution levels should be compared in relative terms to others (e.g. co2 / Mwhr) or similar, not as an absolute figure, which even if some thing has the same waste output per unit of electricity would give a higher figure.

The statement as to commitment to "conventional" generation by the government is also biased as there are proposals for more wind and renewable energy schemes. Lots of old power stations were closed as fitting FGDp was not economical. There is a lack of a NPOV in the statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 June 2008

Further to this, I've removed the following statement from the article:

Recent decisions (Jan 2008) by the UK government to build up to ten new nuclear power stations underline the ongoing political bias towards traditional forms of energy generation such as Drax.

This is POV, and not really factually accurate: if the government is showing any bias, it's towards nuclear power specifically, which has a low carbon footprint (even if there are other environmental concerns). They've shown no bias towards building Drax-style coal-fired plants at all. JRawle (Talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Power Stations

The photo in section "Environmental effects" is misleading because it suggests the huge cloud is a cloud of pollution. Of course this is a cloud of condensed water vapor, which comes from the cooling towers. However, rather than remove just the photo, I suggest we remove or rewrite the whole section. As it is, it is biased and its contents are not verifiable. Ccfn (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is correctly referenced, to a sufficient level for the article to pass GA. With regard to the image, if you look closer, the trail of smoke can be seen to be coming from the main stack, not the cooling towers. The section and article as a whole are not biased. A rounded commentary of the station and its operations are provided, but a section on the environmental impact of the station must be included, otherwise the article would be seen as being biased in the other direction. Fintan264 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass Power Stations

In the section on Biomass, is the text "is expected to burn 1,400,000 tonnes of biomass each year, saving 1,850,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum". The figure of "1,850,000" is very difficult to believe, as the amount of CO2 emitted is mostly related to the amount of energy generated, and not so much on the choice of fuel. Any comments? Ccfn (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support your concern. The section about Co-firing says the move to biomass is to reduce CO2 Emmisions. As far as I know this is INCORRECT. The move is to reduce Fossil Fuel CO2 Emmisions, by replacing them with Renewables. The idea is that CO2 burnt from wood etc. goes back into the next lot of trees etc, but burning Fossil fuels is reducing our store of carbon that took CO2 out of the atmosphere millions of years ago.

We need to watch this Page because there is great commercial interest in it. This is the foremost internet window for a £multi-billion operation.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(please indent replies for clarity)

The text is correct. The idea of burning a renewable source is that is reduces net CO2 emissions because the source is renewed. Gross emissions are practically the same.

The original poster is essentially or completely incorrect - The amount of CO2 is directly related to the amount of fuel burnt and its carbon content, and is completely unrelated to energy produced.

At the same operating efficiency there is a direct relationship between the amount of conversion to renewable fuel and CO2 saved. At 100% conversion 1 ton of carbon produces 3.6 tons of CO2. The figure given is entirely realistic, even when taking into account slightly lower efficiency, and additional transport costs.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't make it clear - the CO2 saving is due to the amount of coal not being burnt - this isn't obvious from the information given - for dry biomass the ratio is ~2:1 biomass to coal by weight equivalence (for equal energy) - but biomass is not necessarily dry - nor is it explicit if dry biomass is being referred to. Nevertheless at a 2:1 or worse ratio of biomass to coal, and a 1:3.6 ratio of coal:CO2 the figure give is completely rational.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply burning biomass vs coal only changes whether the CO2 produced is from historically sequestered CO2 or prehistorically sequestered CO2.

Whether the biomass is replaced and how long that takes is another issue.

The text is basically unclear, but is incorrect wrt the power station in isolation as burning biomass still produces CO2. The CO2 emitted by burning biomass can only be said to be net zero when that biomass has been replaced and the replacement has grown to at least the same maturity, which needs to be properly explained and it is not obviously stated in the article.

Notably, clear cut wood pellet production causes CO2, CH4 and N20 production from soil for a significant time, which is not accounted for in any CO2 figures and the replacement trees will take decades before the same amount of CO2 is sequestered, not to mention other biodiversity issues. Therefore burning such biomass as clear cut wood pellets in Drax produces a net carbon deficit for decades and net zero will only occur when the new growth biomass reaches a level of maturity to account for the clear cut soil emissions, transport, processing and burning of the previous generation of clear cut. Since clear cut pellet production will occur on trees with the same level of maturity each harvest, there is a net carbon deficit of the processing, transport and soil emissions. Even if bio, solar or wind energy were used for the processing and transport in clear cut, soil CO2 emissions following clear cut are not accounted for. One of the main suppliers to Drax produces pellets from clear cut. Whether Drax only uses the waste from clear cut or not is a factor in the sustainability.

Coppicing, straw waste and other bio sources can be more rapidly CO2 neutral with a 1 to 10 year cycle, but also depend on the fuel used in the production of that biomass.

There is a direct relationship between fuel burnt, energy output and CO2 emitted. The relationship between CO2 directly emitted and net CO2 emitted depends on the fuel production, not the power station, but at a biomass burning power station such as Drax, there will always be a delay between energy extraction / CO2 generation and CO2 sequestering, during which time the CO2 emitted adds to net CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Note that the word renewable only means something can be renewed, it does not imply that it is or will be renewed.

Maybe not relevant to this article but ignoring CO2, biomass is simply a way of storing energy from sunlight. The amount of sunlight required over the time to produce the biomass, makes it a very inefficient way of storing the sun's energy. Biomass also comes from land which is highly fertile and could produce food or bio products for other uses. Solar energy can be more directly and more efficiently captured and stored or transmitted by various means in areas which are infertile. Biomass is a short term energy solution to use existing infrastructure which could be replaced by better long term solutions.

Note that I am an engineer, not an environmentalist and I am neither pro nor anti using biomass at Drax, although the source of the biomass is important to me. I just want Wiki to be unbiased, with good factual explanations.Lkingscott (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, CO2 extraction from flue gases, for other uses or storage, affect CO2 emissions too.Lkingscott (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding into the article the findings here: http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/ ,my English is not so good to do so on my own, sorry 81.200.57.139 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drax Power Station → Drax power station — Just for capitalisation purposes, per a discussion at Talk:Stella power stations#So what was the right name? some time ago.--Fintan264 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just noticed the move here. 'Drax Power Station' is a proper noun, isn't it? And proper nouns are always capitalized, according to WP:CAPS. If 'power station' is not part of the name, then the article should be located at Drax (power station), per WP:PRECISE. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First to burn wood

The article currently reads: "The station tested co-firing biomass in the summer of 2004, and in doing so was the first power station in the UK to be fuelled by wood.". Is this definitely correct, I have a memory that Slough Trading Estate has burnt almost exclusively fibre-fuel for a lot of its lifetime? —91.189.88.12 (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petcoke

Would be useful for the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Drax_power_station#Petcoke to link to the Petcoke http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Petcoke with internal links. It links at the top but if you are reading through there is no link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.249.137 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fintan264 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/21/drax-scraps-plans-uk-biomass-plants

Plan for plant at Ouse is dead. Seems should be merged as footnote, also links into plans to burn more biomass in original plant - so a good idea to cover both here. As for the proposed Immingham plant - don't know.. but see http://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/immingham-biomass-viability-to-be-decided/8628530.article - it's been called " Heron Renewable Energy Plant" for a while

As an aside it may make sense to consider converting the article to a company article "Drax Group" with power plants as sections, if they start operating more than one plant.

Also the proposed Hull biomass plant is also dead [1] [2]- there was a very similar sounding Dong Energy proposal that was cancelled 2010 [3] [4] bbc etc also note http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Drax-halts-switch-biomass/story-11948807-detail/story.html which claims Drax dropped Hull plans in 2010, and was planning to build on same site as Dong Energy..? But other sources claim it halted in 2012 ???? Oranjblud (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done - into history section - I can write more if sources are provided, but the merged article was completely unreferenced - so I had to work with what I could find..Oranjblud (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also update (out of date)

Post privatisation history goes to 2009 with a not very enlightening sentence on being downgraded from BBB+ to BB- (or something). After that nothing.
- Turbine refit - should be in the text body - is it finished yet?
- Biomass plans - as above -some are shelved

Also "dates" (year/month) eg The station's use of biomass has continued to increase and a target has been set for 12.5% of the station's energy to be sourced from biomass. This will contribute to the station's aim to cut its CO2 emissions by 15%. - doesn't say when ... I know its in the reference - but the text should say. There's more than one like this.

One minor point - the image in Drax_power_station#Environmental_effects mentions CO2 - but the image is of a steam cloud - is this helpfully educational?? Maybe it should be changed.

I can do the fixing on the biomas plans but would prefer someone else to do the rest..Oranjblud (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wind farm removal

this:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Drax_power_station&diff=579299602&oldid=579299448

In August 2010, the Wind Prospect Group announced plans to build a 12-turbine wind farm nearby. Known as the Rusholme wind farm, each of the hubs will stand at 60 m (200 ft), with 40 m (130 ft) blades, a total height of 100 m (330 ft).^[1]

This in not drax - as far as I can tell the backer is EDF energy - most large scale wind farm development have there own article..

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/drax/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b 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 ^Notify_Online 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Venables, Mark (31 August 2010). "Wind farm set to neighbor coal-fired power station". Archived from the original (CFM) on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 23 January 2013.

Merge

Suggest merging Drax Group - rationale

The only purpose of Drax group currently or in the likely near future is Drax power station
As a result Having both articles results in duplication of content.

Additional rationale:

Drax Group is out of date, and unmaintained, with the exception of a link to 2013 financial reports
Much of the content in Drax Group (eg the entire History section) is already in this article, in more depth, and referenced.
This article also covers all aspects of subsidiary activities to Drax's power generation business in detail eg Fly ash, biomass supply etc.
If Drax Group is not merged then it has multiple issues as stands.

In short 2 articles represent a Wikipedia:Content forking. I have no opinion on what the better article title is.Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--On the face of it, I came here to oppose, but I read your reasons and understand them. Perhaps, one day we might need these pages, but if it is true that the only purpose of the Drax Group for the forseeable future is the power station, then I will go with this.- SUPPORT IceDragon64 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me editing your text above- might save a misunderstanding ;) IceDragon64 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One is about the power station. The other is about the listed company. I have cleaned up the article about the listed company to avoid duplication. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Drax power station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Drax Power Station/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Geo-data need investigating as this fails to change in line with user preferences
External links in text need making into references or moving to external links section

Keith D 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 13:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions of the chimney

Article says: "The reinforced concrete chimney stands 259 metres (850 ft) high, with a diameter of 9.1 metres (30 ft), and weighs 44,000 tonnes. It consists of three flues..." I believe this is an error. The entire structure measures about 25m in diameter, where each of the three flues has a diameter of about 9.1 meter. This is according to (inaccurate) measurements on Google Maps, and according to site visit, where the highth/diameter proportion looks rather 10/1 (or 259/25) than 30/1 (or 259/9.1).Bruno verwimp (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on spotting that error! :) Using my copy of Advances in Power Station Construction (CEGB), the chimney is 259m tall with a 26m overall diameter. I've corrected and expanded the section accordingly from this source. Alas it makes no mention of the mass. Myfanwy (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drax 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723111032/http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/media/press_releases/?id=1355 to http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/media/press_releases/?id=1355

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drax 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.kelasplc.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213004409/http://www.drax.com/media/32649/drax_ar13_final.pdf to http://www.drax.com/media/32649/drax_ar13_final.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.draxpower.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Drax 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200 MW battery storage, but lasting how long ?

The peak output power is indeed an important metric. However it doesn't mean much without knowing how long it can last, in other words, the quantity of energy that is stored. Said quantity is formally expressed in Joule or more commonly in kW·h (here the order of magnitude is most likely MW·min).

Anyway, the promotional pamphlet cited as reference does not mention batteries other than an eventual plan illustrated by a link to nowher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noliscient (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operational History

I am surprised that there is no mention of the operational history of Drax, which has had a number of dramatic failures. In the late 1970s the rotors of two of the generators had to be removed and scrapped as they had developed very large cracks in the rotor body. (CEGB classified this as "Secret" at the time, although they later declassified it, which is why I know about it.) In the late 1980s and early 1990s some more generator rotors were similarly found cracked, removed and scrapped. Some years before that one generator had a catastrophic failure when an aluminium wedge in a rotor winding slot was ejected while the machine was on load at normal running speed. (I read an internal report about it at the time). I also heard that some time in the 1990s, while Drax was owned by National Power, another unit had a similar failure. I have not heard anything since National Power sold Drax (no personal contacts there). This is all interesting practical engineering experience. Unfortunately it may be that there are no public domain documents describing any of these events, so no references, and hence not suitable for Wikipedia. DMWard (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This whole post is true. And yet this whole post is a LIE.

" In 2012, the company announced plans to convert three generating units to solely biomass, burning 7.5 million tonnes imported from the United States and Canada. This work was completed in 2016 and a fourth unit was converted in 2018"

That's all true, of course. But do you know what "biomass imported from the USA and Canada is" ? It's VIRGIN PINE FOREST. See story here: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/

By the time you do the end-to-end conversion, you are emitting more CO2 per kWh using this "biomass" than if you'd burned local coal in the first place. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:DD54:FE:898D:AB26 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's dinosaur with an illustrious past. Time to Say Goodbye. Can someone think of a reuse for it? Lawrence18uk (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Venables, Mark (31 August 2010). "Wind farm set to neighbor coal-fired power station". Archived from the original (CFM) on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 23 January 2013.

[1]