Jump to content

Talk:Geothermal energy in Turkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGeothermal energy in Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2022Good article nomineeListed
January 15, 2024Good topic candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 13, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Romans enjoyed balneotherapy from geothermal energy in Turkey?
Current status: Good article

Needs expert on CO2 reinjection

[edit]

So is it like Italy where only half the CO2 can be reinjected? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new report

[edit]

http://www.jeotermaletki.com/en/announcement/2019/final-best-practice-guide-has-been-published more could be added from this

Adoption of binary cycle plants ?

[edit]

The article does not currently make it clear how many of the existing plants (if any) are binary cycle. This seems highly relevant given that the geothermal fluids are unusually high in CO2. If plants are binary cycle, I understand this means that geothermal fluids are returned to the reservoir and are not released to atmosphere. This would presumably mean negligible CO2 emissions ? This point about flash plants versus binary plants seems worth covering in the article.Marshelec (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added ratio Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Geothermal energy in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to read the article, will review it in a few days.VR talk 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I'm currently reading the article. Like the other article I GA-reviewed, it feels short. But can you quickly fix this: Geothermal energy in Turkey#Sources. I haven't see other articles on wikipedia have such a section. If you're not sure how best to attribute, maybe we can ask someone.VR talk 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else added that - I have moved to talk page Chidgk1 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some ideas for expansion:

  • The article needs a section on environmental impact. If there is none, then say that, but I'm sure there will be some. There's currently only one sentence on "hydrogen sulphide in the air and heavy metals in the water."
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Research could be expanded. What kind of research and what are its direct applications in Turkey?
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on "Financing and public opinion" doesn't talk much about public opinion.
Done (put it in "environmental impact") Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the section on "Carbon-dioxide emissions" a subsection of geology?
Added a couple of sentences - if still unclear please tell me Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chidgk1, I see that now. But there is a contradiction. The second sentence seems to imply Turkey geothermal power did not increase CO2 emissions but then the third sentence says it does. Can you please resolve that? VR talk 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR talk 20:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent I was in 2 minds about including the sentence "A European study showing no net increase in CO2 did not include Turkey" - it is a nice study but out of scope and the sentence likely confuses readers - do you think I should relegate it to a footnote? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: when sources contradict each other, WP:NPOV requires we state both of them with attribution. So you can state it like "Sources differ on CO2 emissions by geothermal plants in Turkey. X says A, although Y says B...." BTW, the following sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: "A European study showing no net increase in CO2 did not include Turkey". What did not include Turkey?VR talk 04:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Amended paragraph to try and make it clearer - if still unclear please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates. I still have some suggestions. Research section can be increased significantly more (I say this because wikipedia is built on published RS, and scientific research is an are of active publishing). Here are my suggestions:

  • which conferences on geothermal energy are held in Turkey, what are there names?
Done
  • what exactly is the research on using geothermal for desalinization? How would that work (would the heat be first converted into electricity or used directly?)? What progress has been made?
Done
  • what were the results of induced seismic risk? Is geothermal energy increasing it or is it still safe for Turkey?
Apart from the abstract it is behind a paywall - although I am 99% sure the added risk must be minimal otherwise they would have said in the abstract I cannot really add that without access to the whole paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does dry ice have to do with geothermal energy?
Done
@Vice regent: I would love to be able to significantly expand the research section but unfortunately there is not enough funding for geothermal research in this country so there is far less here than in, for example, the US. However I have attempted to clarify the points above and have added some development info. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR talk 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another point. The lead should include a summary of all the content in the article, so make sure to include things like research and public opinion (even just a sentence or two) in the lead.VR talk 21:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of this: "However the carbon price in Iceland is the same as the EU Allowance (around 80 euros a tonne in mid-2022),[42] whereas in Turkey it is zero." I think I can guess, but please explain in the article.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also explain, expand on ""public finance is more beneficial if it addresses early-stage risks."".
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who did the World Bank loan $300 million to? The Turkish government? Local governments? Corporations?
Pretty sure not the central government. Probably private companies but could be local government or both. But cannot find any source with details sorry. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found a doc which gives a little info so added Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does this mean: "The Geothermal Power Plant Investors Association said in February 2022 that the interest on lira loans was about 24%, and that it was nonviable to invest at the then feed in tariff (also in lira)"? Can you expand and explain?
I don't properly understand myself however I have added that the feed-in-tariff is updated quarterly and has a USD cap - perhaps they think that the president will not increase the FiT up to the cap every quarter - but I cannot say that as I cannot find a source to confirm my economically illiterate original research. Maybe I should just delete the sentence? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you yourself don't fully understand what a sentence means then please delete it.VR talk 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR talk 06:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC) More comments:[reply]

  • "There are both existing and planned plants in environmentally sensitive areas" what areas are these? Why are they environmentally sensitive?
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify this: "that it was nonviable to invest at the then feed in tariff."

VR talk 23:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as the feed in tariff must have changed since February so not sure if still true Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent I put it in history because the feed in tariff for new plants is less than that now. Having said that existing plants continue to get that tariff (for 10 years since they started generating if I remember right). So if you like I could move it to a different section or change "was" to "is". Chidgk1 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then you should explain that. Write it like, "In year A, the Turkish government set the feed in tariff at X, but in year B it was lowered to B." And then maybe give a reason for why it was lowered.VR talk 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inflation is officially over 70% a year now so I think it would be too much work for future editors to keep lira FiT numbers up to date. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a website with the continually updated figures otherwise I would link to it. However I have explained in the finance section that the figure is updated quarterly. As explained in the finance section although it is capped at UScent8.6 as far as I understand it the president is not obliged to increase it up to the cap at each quarterly review. So in history I have added "In 2021 the feed-in tariff was reduced and changed to lira" - presumably govt thought that would save money but I cannot find any official explanation. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why "Direct use of heat" section keeps talking about GW, MW etc. I thought direct use of heat doesn't involve conversion to electricity, so what does gigawatt and megawatt refer to?VR talk 14:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Improved the wikilink and added a few words in brackets - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: The source given[1] doesn't show anything. Is the link correct?VR talk 04:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was correct when I added it - I suspect some unskilled person moved the page without redirecting the old one - have corrected Chidgk1 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a formal review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A lot of good effort has been put into the article. It has been challenging to review as there are not a lot of "Geothermal in X" GAs.

Yes I understand. If you found another ""Geothermal in X" GA please tell me X thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I think the issues regarding prose and organization have finally been resolved.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I've read some of the sources, the article appears verifiable. Earwig says copyvio unlikely.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article is focused and covers all major aspects. Just some clarifications are needed above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images and captions are appropriate and relevant.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Putting this on hold. We are nearly there, please address the remaining comments above. Thanks and good work!VR talk 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have now addressed all the remaining comments - if not please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: I hope you are well - do I need to do anything else please? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, passing. Congratulations and thanks for all the hard work! VR talk 00:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

[edit]

I moved the below from the article - see above GA comment. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC) This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO Text taken from UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development, UNESCO, UNESCO publishing. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see this how-to page. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Geothermally heated spa in Keramet, Orhangazi
Geothermally heated spa in Keramet, Orhangazi

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The wording of the hook feels clunky and would be interested in seeing some alts

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: Yes
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: No - The picture isn't the greatest of images at a small resolution but I guess its not a blocker to the nom
QPQ: Done.

Overall: better hook and fixing some of the close paraphrasing and we are good! Seddon talk 02:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find a better pic sorry but fixed copyvio (I think - Earwig is not working for me right now)Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 ... that the Romans enjoyed balneotherapy from geothermal energy in Turkey? Source: Hierapolis is an exceptional example of a Greco-Roman thermal installation established on an extraordinary natural site. The therapeutic virtues of the waters were exploited at the various thermal installations, which included immense hot basins and pools for swimming. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/485/

ALT2 ... that to effect greenhouse warming global hottest is geothermal energy in Turkey? (will cite if you like it) Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 ... that reinjection is good protection, against a greenhouse effect when effecting greenhouse warming? (will cite if you like it) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 ... that, for hot Turkey, to avoid passing foul-smelling gas and annoying people nearby it is important to make sure we have reinjection.

ALT1 is the same as the main hook, so no need to repeat it. ALT2-4 seem to be Google-translated and make no sense for me. The fourth translation is even somewhat funny when you think of it. I can't speak Turkish, but maybe someone else can help you out. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: ALT2-4 are aimed at native English speakers like me. So they are kind of puzzles which make no sense at first, so readers might be tempted to click to find out the meaning. ALT2 looks like a word salad reversing "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" but means that there are more geothermally heated greenhouses in Turkey than elsewhere in the world. ALT3 rhymes in the first clause and then reverses "greenhouse effect": meaning is that the CO2 must be put back in ground. ALT4 is supposed to make schoolkids think of farting: meaning is that hydrogen sulphide should be put back in ground. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddon: I just noticed you are an ex-geologist. As well as checking above hooks, if you have time could you tell me whether the geology parts of the article could be improved at all? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, @Chidgk1 while I don't doubt your language proficiency, I must admit that I would have assumed ALT2-4 to be google translations as well – and reported them as a main page error, instead of being intrigued by them :/ Which is a shame, because quirkyness is one of the things I like about DYK. But at this level of quirky, they might work for April's fool or something; I think you'd need to make them a little less confusing for non-natives like me. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1 and Seddon: It's been more than a week since even my comment, are you still around? Don't let this become stale as so many noms recently :) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII and Seddon: I am available but I thought I was waiting for the reviewer. I thought Seddon is the reviewer or is it you now? Whoever is the reviewer - can we go with ALT1? Chidgk1 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Seddon is the reviewer, Chidgk1 I just wanted to ping you in case you wanted to rephrase the other ALTs (which may be witty, but too complex). And since I'm not sure Sedon is fine with ALT1, it sounded like he thought it too uninteresting. Anyway, here I suggest yet another hook:
I'm not sure it's that interesting either, but I'll leave it here to show there's potential for more hooks.--LordPeterII (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon I hope you are well. Are you happy with any of the ALT hooks? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6: " ... that 3% of Turkey's electrical generation capacity smells bad?" -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I could not find any mention of the Romans in the article, which would disallow ALT1.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: In attempt to make the process clearer I put a strike through the original hook as this seems to have been replaced by ALT1. I also struck ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4 in agreement with the above comments about issues with them. Noting that DYK now shows pictures at slightly more than 100 px I think the image is acceptable for consideration. If a citation can be added to "Environmental impact and public opinion" and the details in ALT1 - personally my favourite hook - added to the article then this is good to go. CSJJ104 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSJJ104 Amended as requested - if anything else needed please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problems fixed, this now passes review. CSJJ104 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Power Plants

[edit]

Created a map (below) and Data.map dataset on Commons to show the geothermal plants in Turkey. I propose added this kind of map to the article. The plants shown are from the "Global Power Plant Database" v1.3.0. More plants can be added into this dataset by editing the Geojson with lat/long and labels. Any comments?

Map
Geothermal power plants in Turkey (commons:Data:PowerPlant/Turkey/geothermal-operational.map)

@Chidgk1: I saw your request from 29 June 2022 at the GL/Map workshop. Created this type of data-driven map to meet your requirements. Let me know if you need any help. - DutchTreat (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DutchTreat Excellent thanks very much I have added it. Is it possible to show the names of the plants without having to click on them? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: I don't see an option in {{maplink}} to add a display label without the click. Sorry. It is possible to change the fill color or marker type. DutchTreat (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A traditional static map gives more creative control over the label placements. However, the maintenance cost is higher and a bit more difficult to verify. If you would prefer a static map, we can discuss. DutchTreat (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DutchTreat It is hard to know whether there will be many new geothermal power plants in future. At the moment it seems unlikely so a static map might be best. But let’s wait until after the election in May to be sure - I guess there is a small possibility a new government might radically revise energy policy. So I will likely ping you in June to get your opinion both on this map and the static maps I have in some other articles. I don’t have any graphics skills but happy to do some donkey work with your advice. Thanks for your help so far and I hope to be in touch later to pick your brains Chidgk1 (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Ping me when you want to talk in more detail. DutchTreat (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geothermal_energy_in_Turkey&oldid=1206659839"