Talk:List of largest power stations/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of largest power stations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Power stations with more sources

That is very interesting list. My question is how to deal with power station with more possible sources? It's not unusual for plants with steam and gas turbines. Some of them are switching them during year or mixing sources directly. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Since this is not a list of all power stations, I think it would be sufficient to list the most significant source, dont you think? If you think its a bad idea, I wouldn't mind discussing other options. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To list power station only in one category due to most significat source is good idea, but i am not sure if we are able to found proper sources for that. So i think it would be better to show them in multiple sources, but express that more clearly using ref, note column or dedicated column (i am not sure what of these solution may be the best). --78.108.106.253 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt sourcing would be a problem. Since afterall, this page lists the five largest power stations (of each kind) in the world; sources should exist due to popularity. Due to this same reason, i was also thinking of creating articles of each of these redlinks. And moving all sources and description there. That would be better, dont you think? The part where 'only the most significant source is listed' can be described in the lead section. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

I have started in creating stub articles on those redlinks listed in this page. I am quite sure that it will not violate any notability restrictions; it is one of the five largest power stations of its kind, in the world. I wouldnt mind help at all, so feel free to pick up a redlink and turn it into an article. But do remember to categorize, source and inter-link the article to avoid it being an orphan, unsourced article, or similar. Thanks and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maximum capacity

What does this recently added "maximum" capacity mean? I know about current capacity (that is for me relevant for this list), capacity in construction (should be also listed, but not as primary, as not all in construction is finally built) or capacity planned (for this even strongly not all planned is finally built). Or does it mean maximum current capacity (that can be relevant for Itaipu for example). --78.108.106.253 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have slightly rephrased the lead. Hope its better. Do feel free to change it further if you feel like to. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear power

Calling nuclear power non-renewable, but solar power renewable, is a silly arbitrary distinction. Both consume a fuel that will eventually run out. The only salient difference is that we can't control how quickly the sun consumes hydrogen, but we can control how quickly we consume uranium, lithium, hydrogen, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.196.138 (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Solar power is renewable, since it will never runs out. The day it runs out is when human leaves earth (or become extinct), when the sun collapses itself into a supernova/etc (dies). Nuclear on the other hand, is similar to solar, because we have over five billion years of uranium left to consume; who knows whether humans will even exist at that time. We werent existing even a million years ago... But yet, i too have a little confusion with this, so a debate would always be welcoming. Regards. Reh man 10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be original research. I have never seen a reliable source classify solar power as non-renewable, even though we all know that the sun will not last forever. On the other hand I don't think nuclear is normally classified as renewable in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think i said it in a confusing way. I meant solar power is renewable, and nuclear is not. Regards. Reh man 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To produce nuclear power raw uranium must be enriched. This requires energy, so I think it cannot be regarded as non-renewable. Can anyone supply accurate information on say how many units of electric power generated by other sources are required to produce 1 Unit of nuclear-generated electricity? Regards. [Bev Lawrence - South Africa]

This article is new

Hello editors and readers. As you can see, this article is new. The tables are not complete, and facts may have been ommitted by error. You are welcome to help expand and help improve this article. Please do note that some subsections may be hidden, if they are completely empty. Also, please limit entries to five per section, to avoid unnecessary clogging. Thank you and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In the peat section Toppila is the largest in the table but 4th largest in the picture caption?? 87.113.255.41 (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Uljin Nuclear Power Plant

Uljin Nuclear Power Plant is missing from the top 10. Beagel (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest list

I was poking through this list and it is really good but I think there should be a "top ten" or so list of the overall largest. My immediate feeling is that I would see something like that on this article. I know there is a nice partial blurb in the lead but a list would be great. Also, what is stopped this list from being or close to being featured?--NortyNort (Holla) 14:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I thought of an "overall top ten list" when I created this list some time back, but adding such a table would basically only consist of nuclear and hydro. So I though it would be useless, so I linked a "list of power station by [type]" as a see also under each section instead, while adding a small summary in the lead. I have been trying to pull this list up to FL for quite some time, but the following tasks are slowing the process:

Coordinates for Kannagawa Pumped-storage Power Station
Coordinates for Huizhou Pumped-storage Power Station
Coordinates for Guangzhou Pumped-storage Power Station
Expand Concentrated Photovoltaics (somewhat big task)
- Research existing plants
- Find related free-licence images
- Find trusted refs
- Find coordinates
Precise coordinates for each of the SEGS plants
Coordinates for Orkney Wave Power
Coordinates for SDE Sea Waves Power Plant

And other small stuffs here and there. Currently, I am stealing time from my work place trying to finish this ;) You are most welcome to help out. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the top list is useless. People like to see stuff like that and definitely look for it. Lists on Wikipedia are invaluable. When I read the list today, I was a little upset not to see it. I also didn't notice all of those coordinates were missing too or some lists incomplete. I like doing geospatial journeys and if I get a chance, I'll help out.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And I like getting third-party comments. ;) Will add a top-ten shortly. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The largest list is complete. Minor fixes may be needed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! A definite improvement to the article. I see one coal station made it on the list, that's a big station.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

Is "in the world" really necessary? Such is routinely assumed on similar lists without the needless qualifier of "on Earth" or "in the world" or "on the planet"? If there were space-based power stations, I suspect they should be included here... Savidan 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the title without "in the world" is better. But considering the numerous more lists that follow this type of naming (1, 2, 3, etc), shouldn't it be uniform? Rehman 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rovigo Photovoltaic Power Plant

As the Rovigo Photovoltaic Power Plant is operational now, it should be added to the list. Beagel (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, updated, but we lost the section image :( Hopefully we could get another soon. Rehman 01:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuoketuo Power Station

Good day. I compliment the authors on this excellent list. As I have worked in this industry for many years, and now lecture on it, I find it most informative. Thank you! There is no discussion section for Coal-fired plants so I place my comment here. The table lists Tuoketuo plant as 2nd largest with Capacity of 5,400MW. However I cannot verify this from the descriptions available on Internet in English, and cannot read the Chinese ones. The Datang Power site gives its capacity as 3000MW (6 x 500) and their 2010 Annual Announcement gives its Annual Output as 4.4795 billion kWh, which seems to confirm this. Is the capacity stated in the list verifiable? [Bev Lawrence - South Africa] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.173 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks for the compliments :) According to the three references provided (with translation help from Google Translate), the current total plant capacity is 5,400MW. It also menioned that new units are under construction, and that the total capacity will be 6,600MW in the near future... Kind regards. Reh man 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This source states 3,600 MW and this 2005 source indicates they were upgrading from 2400 to 3600. I can't see one of the sources in the Wikipedia article but it appears to be an error. Also, such a large plant should have its own article!--NortyNort (Holla) 11:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Sometime back, some editors and I began creating all the red-linked articles mentioned in this list (since they are the largest). This one was added sometime after all those were created, and hence was eventually "forgotten" I guess. ;) Will start the new article at "Tuoketuo Power Station" soon; all help welcomed. Kind regards. Reh man 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, created the article. Feel free to improve. Kind regards. Reh man 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, nice job on the article. I am still having trouble reliably confirming the 5,400 number. One source you use here at the DTPower's website states 3,600. And the second has a translation with Google I am not to sure of. The third (second in article) source has a sketchy translation as well and is Baidu, a user-generated site. The end of this 18 March 2011 source seems to indicate that only units 1-6 are operational. Also, they didn't receive funding for phase 4 & 5 until 2007 here.This 2008 source states 3,600 MW as well. I will refer this to User:Generalhuo for a spot check since he works Chinese power stations often.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing lead sentence and terminology

"This article lists five of the largest power stations in the world of each type..."

What does "five of the largest" mean? Five randomly chosen large ones? Or, as the tables seem to suggest, should it actually say "the five largest"?

Why is the "Top 10 largest power producing facilities" (i.e. overall largest, I assume) not mentioned in the description of the article's contents in the lead paragraph?

The difference between "power producing facilities" and "power stations" is not explained. If there is no difference then the same term should be used throughout to avoid confusion.

--86.160.220.168 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the first is definitely a typo/grammar issue, and should be fixed. As for the second point; the article (just like all other pages at the 'pedia) is constantly being improved, so if you spot any shortcomings, please free to improve yourself :) As for the terminology, different countries use different terms, but if you feel uncomfortable using different terms on the same page, feel free to change them ("power station" is preferred, per the wide usage). Regards. Reh man 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hydroelectric list

The James Bay complex in Quebec has 16,000 MW of installed capacity, which should make it no. 2 in the world behind Three Gorges.

RWH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.195.65.96 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Since they are hydraulically and hydrologically separated they don't count as a single power station. The list is for single power stations.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alta Wind in CA

As of 2012, Alta wind is claimed to produce more power than the Roscoe Wind farm. I will update the list.72.78.17.101 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest photovoltaik stations - update

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Solarpark_Meuro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ise-nr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will update the page shortly. Reh man 01:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The European Union is not a country

Please note members of the EU are soveriegn states. I am editing the page to highlight their national flags. Referring to the EU as a country causes offence to many and should be left out of a non-political article. National flags only if country is cited. Europe as a region can carry the flag of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.6.91 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was unaware when the changes were made, or else I would have stopped it. I will revert it shortly. Thanks. Reh man 12:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Capacity

Is there electro, heating, or electro+heating capacity? Burger81 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I dont understand. Are you asking the type of capacity listed? I've just rephrased the lead describing that the page lists stations according to maximum electrical generating capacity. Hope i got it right. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Burger81 may have gone now, however I suspect the question was directed toward Combined heat and power or Cogeneration. These plants are sized by thermal output, not just electrical. Any thought? I would think the thermal output of the heat source is the only parameter to use.--Graham Proud (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest Generating Unit by Country

I have been looking for the single largest generating unit in each country. I think within this article is the best place, rather than create another article for this small list. Here is what I have so far:

France: Flamanville 1750 MW
Australia: Kogan Creek 750 MW
South Korea: Hanul 1350 MW
United States: WH Zimmer 1425 MW

Any suggestions? Thanks!--Graham Proud (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I did initially lean towards to a new article, but then a "Largest power stations by country" section seemed more practical. Basically one major section, with sub-sections for each continent, and a table under each. The table could possible have these columns: Country, Coords, Plant capacity, Fuel type, and Refs. What do you think?

We could also arrange the contents per largest plant capacity of each continent, instead of alphabetical, since this article is about the largest power stations in the world, after all. Reh man 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rehman, but I am not sure you are quite with me yet. For example, in Australia, Kogan Creek has ONE 750 MW boiler-turbine-generator unit. That one unit is the largest generating unit in the country, but there are plenty of multi-unit power stations, like Eraring that has FOUR 660 MW boiler-turbine-generator units. I am looking for the really BIG machines!--Graham Proud (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I get it. How about something like this:

Country		Largest facility	Capacity	Fuel type	Location	Ref		Largest unit	Capacity	Fuel type	Location	Ref
Sri Lanka		Example4 Power Station	80,000	Hydropower	01°00′00″N 01°00′00″E / 1.00000°N 1.00000°E / 1.00000; 1.00000	1		Unit-4 of Example6 Power Station	800	Diesel	01°00′00″S 01°00′00″W / 1.00000°S 1.00000°W / -1.00000; -1.00000	2

This way, we could still stick to one country per row. --Reh man 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have nailed it! Now we have a lot of work to do...how do we enlist help? You seem like part of the Wikipedia family...--Graham Proud (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) This is a BIG job! I am also updating / adding entries in the List of power stations in <country> articles as I go. Since it is such a big job...I am wondering if the References and Location columns are necessary, if we are linking to WP articles on the actual plants.--Graham Proud (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FL criteria requires references in such lists. Since we're at it, might as well start off properly, so that it's easier to bring this to FL later. Will definitely help out as soon as work settles down for me (weekend maybe). If you need any technical help, do let me know though. I'm always around :) Reh man 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, can we agree on keeping references but lose the location column? That detail is available in the specific articles. I would just like to keep the overhead down.--Graham Proud (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The geo-location gives good value to the article. And you can also easily export them to google earth or etc, using the {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. But that's just my view... We also need to figure out how to keep the double lines in the "wikitable sortable" as well. It's quite confusing without the lines IMO... Reh man 12:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The list is good idea, but at current location it is a bit hidden. Consider to move it to separate article or articles (like List of largest power stations by country and List of largest power units by country). --Jklamo (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Types reduction

I propose some reduction of types in renewables section. Namely these:

wave - technology is not yet ready to commercial production, thus there are few station and most of them are research units only
concentrated photovoltaic - not so distinctive type, i think that one PV section is enough; we already have one section for solar thermal, despite it cover mulitple subtypes
offshore wind - not a special type, just special location

--Jklamo (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that offshore should be merged with onshore, but should include 'See also' for both above. And offshore should be marked for distinction e.g. : (o).

'List of wave power stations' should be included in 'see also' list below.

I have no idea why there are 2 different PVs, but they should be merged and have a note attached if they are special kind of PV, but to me they are very similar technologies.

Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The power stations are separated by the technology behind them. For solar, even though both are powered by the sun, they use two different technologies that have a great variance is energy output per PV size. As for wind power, offshore turbines tend to be much larger and their locations have quite a different wind resource. Cost and complexity of turbine foundations for offshore wind power also greatly affect the size offshore wind farms can get. Hence I wouldn't simply smash them together, as although the turbines are essentially the same, many other factors make them different for a list like this. I also don't support removing wave power, as that's a separate technology that is somewhat upward trending. Reh man 12:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - that is, I concur with Rehman. Jklamo and Georgij Michaliutin, perhaps if you put something in your user pages to indicate your capability in this field, we would have reason to consider your proposal more carefully. As it stands though, your comments do not inspire. Saying things like "I have no idea" literally demonstrate your lack of awareness of the field. This is a dynamic and important industry - watch this space!--Graham Proud (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by 'I have no idea' is that why there should be 2 different tables for PV. In my opinion they use same source of energy, and convert sunlight in to electricity in one cell, so why not combine them and add note as what kind of PV it is (just as biofuel). I am studying engineering, and I am aware of differences, but for an average reader they look the same. I think that people mostly care about the source, rather than the tech behind it.

I would also 'disagree' if the following would be addressed: Do you think that biofuel should be broken up in to different categories, eg biogas, wood? Biogas becomes popular in Europe. Also what about turning MSW burning facilities that turn waste in to energy? Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I understood your point about the PV tables. The technologies are quite different, and to say they use the same source of energy is a little simplistic. Ultimately ALL non-nuclear energy comes from the sun (and geothermal is nuclear!). I suggest that we stick with the established nomenclature used by EIA and IEA...so your Biogas suggestion needs some more thought and investigation before we implement.--Graham Proud (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean the source of energy that technology use, we don't need to go to the origin of the source. I don't know where you find EIA or IEA nomenclature, but I've checked EIA website and they separate biofuel category in to wood/wood-derived fuels and other biomass. – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "Storage stations" section, as such a section would basically duplicate the whole list again. The existing "molten salt" is a duplicate of "CSP", because the salt is melted with that same tech. Same with compressed air. The cycle goes on and we could create various "storage" entries in such a section. Reh man 13:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Great work Rehman, I was thinking exactly the same thing. Over time though I think we will need a dedicated category for pure storage (not embedded or implied as you point out, with molten salt in CSP) as battery and flywheel technologies scale up and out. I am aware of two 20 MW flywheel facilities in the US.--Graham Proud (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Power stations by country within this article

Hi Gproud. I don't believe it's a good idea to add all the lists of power stations by country within this article, as the nav template at the end of the page essentially serves the same purpose. And suppose all lists of all countries are filled in, it would not be a pleasent sight. What I think is a better idea is to change the country links so that it directs the reader to a more relevant "List of power stations in xx" article. Example: '''{{Flagicon|Sri Lanka}} [[List of power stations in Sri Lanka|Sri Lanka]]'''. Which gives: Sri Lanka. Best regards. Reh man 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! You read my mind! That's exactly what I wanted...I think we are working together well as a team! Thanks for your help,--Graham Proud (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha great! :) Reh man 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Related to the topic of FL below, could the team take a look at my comment and questions over at Boiler Plate for New List articles? Thanks,--Graham Proud (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Concentrated solar thermal - Why split SEGS? Suggestion

In the list of Concentrated solar thermal plants, SEGS is shown as two projects. Elsewhere it appears as one. Listing just one entry in this table would enable us to show another noteworthy entry from somewhere else...--Graham Proud (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, SEGS consist of legally-separate power stations. So as per this list (of largest individual power stations), we cannot list SEGS as one plant, as it is a group of power stations. Reh man 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Moreover SEGS has 9 units in 3 localities, so legal separation is not the only reason. --Jklamo (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone should have a look at Gujarat / Charanka then: 19 projects, each by a different developer. Another project list seems to show more than 30 different projects at different locations!--Graham Proud (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2014 (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/taichung/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kashiwazaki/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/brucepowergenerating/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/wayang-windu/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/itaipu-hydroelectric/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gurihydroelectric/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/coulee/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/roscoe-wind-farm/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.power-technology.com/news/newsfirst-solars-agua-caliente-project-hit-250mw-milestone
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 11:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Largest power stations

The data for the Shoaiba power plant in Saudi Arabia suggests an installed capacity of 5,600MW and annual production of 132 TWh. The 5,600MW is sourced from an article by Alstom, the builders of the power plant but the 132 TWh has no source. It is not possible to produce this amount of power from a power plant of this size - the max from a 5,600MW plant over a year would be 49.056 TWh.

The installed capacity of Taichung power plant is given as 5,500 MW in the main (Top 20) list, while in the list of Top 10 coal-fired power stations, it is 7,424 MW. This information is misleading and requires correction.Info199 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info199 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why even mention the Igna dam as a potential largest power plant?

Sure, if its built, the Igna dam will be the largest power plant in the world, but the plausibility is ridiculous from a political or financial standpoint. DRC is not Somalia, but it is pretty close to a failed state where the military can barely keep the peace. The country has difficulty in attracting any investment outside of mining due to extreme corruption and political instability. For it to attract 80 billion dollars in investment is beyond impossible for at least a few decades. From this perspective, this proposed Igna dam is no more plausible than some future mega-100000MW-fusion plant, its not suited to be listed as a 'potential future largest power plant'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uishax (talk • contribs) 06:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the feasibility study, started in 2011, is still in a limbo in 2013 (http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/266), further evidence that the project is just a pipedream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uishax (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Waste to Energy Power Stations

On particular types of power stations is missing from this list which is Waste-to-energy power stations, would someone be able to find information to produce a section listing the largest Waste-to-Energy power stations? Stormchaser89 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of 100 largest law firms by revenue which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

largest geothermal power station

The largest powerstations mentioned, the Geysirs is not one powerstation, but a field of 22 powerplants. What is the definition of a powerstation used here to determine the biggest?Jochum (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of largest power stations. 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) 00:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on List of largest power stations. 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) 02:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of largest power stations. 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/20100303122303/http://www.ctgpc.com.cn/en/introduction/introduction_a.php to http://www.ctgpc.com.cn/en/introduction/introduction_a.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923093713/http://www.enelgreenpower.com/en-GB/plants/renewable_energy/geothermal/ to http://www.enelgreenpower.com/en-GB/plants/renewable_energy/geothermal/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211012242/http://www.terra-genpower.com/News.aspx to http://www.terra-genpower.com/News.aspx
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.industcards.com/hydro-switzerland-valais.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.industcards.com/nuclear-at-it-ch.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.industcards.com/nuclear-taiwan.htm

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) 17:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Stats for geothermal at The Geysers is wrong

Two companies operate geothermal at The Geysers now: Calpine has 15 plants totaling ~634 MW Calpine site with stats including power plant counts, Northern California Power Agency has two plants totaling 220 MW per plant production data. That's 854 MW total. According to Calpine history, peak production was 2043 MW in 1987. The page currently says ~1517 MW. That's either too low or too high, depending on how you count things. --Elijah (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Gansu

The number for the Gansu wind farm would put it in the main list if the main list is based on capacity (but probably not if based on annual output, since wind tends to have a relatively low load factor). Should it go in there (replacing the inoperative Japanese nuclear plant?)? Lavateraguy (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Road to FL status

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

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)
Coordinates should not be overly precise. (no decimals)
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".
Each entry/row in tables must be referenced. A difficult task, but a requirement for FLs.
A quality image for each largest-by-type section, preferable the image of the largest plant
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, Reh man 13:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)

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. Reh man 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No reasoning, apart from fatigue-induced error. I must have been nodding off!--Graham Proud (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Suggestions

I have found the following sources to be helpful:

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

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)

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)

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)

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). Reh man 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Aging data

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)

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)

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)

Progress

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)

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. Reh man 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're a hard task master, Rehman, but you make eminent good sense!--Graham Proud (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Reh man 17:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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)
Top 10 expanded to 20, Largest Facilities almost done, apart from coordinates and references.--Graham Proud (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Largest in Country: List Criteria

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Reh man 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I think that we should just vote. –Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Largest in Country: List Vote

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)

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

Number format

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)

Shouldn't the ordinals be as follows? --YaguraStation (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Types clean-up

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)