Talk:Navajo Generating Station

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

CO2 production

The plant consumes 8 million tons of coal, but produces 19.9 million tons of CO2?? How can the plant produce more than three times the amount of CO2 than coal is burned?

--124.188.36.12 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Alan Erskine.[reply]

Simple chemistry.

Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, oxygen 16. So burning one part of carbon would generate 44/12 of CO2. 8 million tons of carbon should make 29 million tons of CO2, but coal is not pure carbon. Keith Henson (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koyaanisqatsi film

Reference to the film Koyaanisqatsi having footage of the plant was removed because it, and the link, did not seem to provide any encyclopedic information on the generating station, appearing to serve mainly to promote the film.PR Alma (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format of quantites

Certain quantities are easier to read and comprehend when written in a conversational format, such as '1.5 million acre-feet' instead of '1,500,000 acre-feet', and '1/2 gallon' instead of '0.5-US-gallon'. These two quantities were changed back to the conversational form after bot conversion, and the SI conversions added manually.PR Alma (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air quality impacts

Re-entered the first sentence in the ‘Air quality impacts’ section - “Air quality monitoring has not indicated any health impacts from plant emissions.” which had been deleted on the basis that “air monitoring does not measure health impacts”. The reasoning for undoing the delete is that the EPA establishes pollutant level standards designed to protect public health, and does use air quality monitoring to determine if levels in specific areas exceed those standards, i.e. are high enough to cause adverse health impacts. (See EPA NAAQS summary at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.) Conversely then, where the standards are not exceeded, the air quality monitoring does not provide indication of adverse health impacts.

An introductory sentence is also important here to show how ambient air quality data relates to the subject (NGS), and state what the data is explaining. PR Alma (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility Rule or the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) DeterminationsUnder the Regional Haze Regulations for data on health impacts of visibility improvements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some health impacts occur at levels of pollutants below the pollutant level standards. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have some serious doubts about the neutrality of this article, which reads like little more than a PR piece--quite fitting, given the user name of the editor who contributed most of the content. Note also that most of the sourcing is primary and/or from government and other associated (and involved) sources. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please unpack your objections. To my eye, it appears resonably well-cited to third-party sources, & appears reasonably fair & balanced. I'll be removing the tags if we don't hear from you (as at the other plant).. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance stub?

I don't know how importance is decided, but i guess this be a great candidate to replace with a non-coal plant[citation needed]. I'm going to add a link to a recent NPR piece about the plant if it isn't there yet. [unsigned, undated comment by IP]

See http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24082015/power-plants-indian-reservations-get-no-break-emissions-rules Not sure how that fits in with the previous BART agreement, but while the Navajo Nation might qualify as a state and obtain some relief, they are in trouble. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a tourist's observation

I visited the region as a tourist last June (2015) and noted that all three NGS smokestacks were emitting a thick brownish yellow smoke. The whole Glen Canyon area lay in this smog, visibilty was very poor. I got the impression that the plant does not use any filters at all (all German power plants that I've ever seen emit white smoke - water vapour that may be more or less poluted, but never has that color). I am a layman who cannot contribute any measurable facts. But I can determine that the pictures used in the Wikipedia article have nothing much to do with the sight the plant presented last June. Bernd Harmsen, Germany. 95.112.252.83 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Net capacity factor

Replying to definition request that was entered in the Performance section of the article December 5, 2016: [There needs to be a definition of "net" capacity factor. Also, 16952/18272=92.6% CF, not 86%].

“Net” refers to the plant output sent out through the transmission lines - the gross energy from the generator minus the energy used internally for plant operation. The net capacity factor is the actual energy output divided by the amount of energy the plant would put out if run at design capacity continuously throughout the year. The calculation takes the form: annual net generation / (net nameplate capacity x total hours per year).

Using the 2011 values in this article, the net capacity factor calculation is : ${\frac {16,952,000\ {\mbox{MW·h}}}{(365\ {\mbox{days}})\times (24\ {\mbox{hours/day}})\times (2250\ {\mbox{MW}})}}=0.86={86\%}$

It is suggested that the definition can be left out of the text of the article since it is explained here and in the “Capacity factor” article, which is linked in the subject sentence.PR Alma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side topic - Here is a proposal to use the power lines for a 2.2 GW pumped hydro storage facility for 10 hours. TGCP (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Navajo Generating 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1303158888395.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801171200/http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/Graphic_Viewer/seasonal.htm to http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/Graphic_Viewer/seasonal.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) 11:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navajo Generating 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://www.webcitation.org/68hTKqeLF?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html

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) 19:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]