# Talk:Electricity in Turkey

Text should be larger - hope to get round to it soon.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2132178-lira-weakness-weighs-on-turkish-coal-generation-margins

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/blog/2020/august/26/coal-imports-help-turkish-economy-in-1h20
if so why dont they turn off all the dams at 6 a.m. when price lowest? some ecological reason?

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ita140188 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I will start the review soon. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


### Previous reviews
The article has already been through 2 GA reviews. I will summarize here the points (if any) that are still not resolved.

The only comment from previous reviews that appear not solved is the one regarding sectioning from Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA2 which I mention below. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
I will present here my comments. 

"See also" section should be before "References".
moved link to body of article and deletedChidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Text seems to be written to accomodate links and other technical aspects, which distracts from the content. For example, the sentence "In the 2010s imports of gas, mostly for power stations in Turkey, was one of the main import costs for the economy of Turkey." would be clearer as: "In the 2010s imports of gas, mostly for power stations, was one of the main import costs for the the country." Also, there is no need to add "electricity sector in Turkey" in the lead in order to have the title in bold (not a requirement per MOS:BOLD).
Lead:
As in the previous comment, the flow could be improved by removing forced sentences to follow links.
There should be no new information in the lead, which should only be a summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD). As of now, many details are only presented in the lead.
Lead info now all in body - I think - if not please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the lead could also be made more compact, for example moving some details (such as excess generation capacity) in the relevant section.
History: Section is clear and concise. However, I think it can be expanded, even just by using existing references.
Done
Consumption:
The section is heavily focused on demand forecasts, but there is no context to as why this is so relevant. It would be helpful to have some more context.
Explained why demand forecasts so important
Topics change suddenly between paragraphs without introduction (for example the last paragraph suddenly talks about EVs). This makes reading difficult. An alternative to some intro text would be to have subsections if some more content is added.
"There is a virtual power plant which includes geothermal, wind, solar and hydro": no indication of notability/size.
Explained notable as first in country
Generation:
Units should generally be given when citing numbers, such as 89.2 TWh (using abbreviation for terawatt-hour).
"Speaking in July 2020 Energy Minister Fatih Dönmez said that half of the country's electricity was generated by renewables,[39] but as rainfall for hydropower in Turkey varies annually it is not yet clear whether this is true longterm." I think this sentence can be removed as unnecessary after giving specific numbers.
The text is sometimes not clear, and it takes effort to understand. For example "As well as the state owned Electricity Generation Company (EUAŞ) there are many private companies with over 80% of the market" would be clearer as (for example): "The state owned Electricity Generation Company (EUAŞ) is the largest electric power company in the country, with 20% of the market. Private companies account for the rest" It's also not clear how the rest of the sentence connects to it ("with solar targeted for 13 GW and wind power in Turkey for 16 GW by 2027")
The section could be expanded and divided into subsections such as "Coal and gas", "Renewable energy", "Nuclear".
Ita140188Those details are already covered in other articles which I have now linked as "Further information"
As suggested in the previous review, the sections 'Trade', 'Transmission', and 'Distribution' should be combined into one section. I also suggest to split the section 'Trade' into 'Electricity market' and 'International exchanges' to better describe the topics.
Ita140188 But I cannot think how to title such a combined section - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Health and safety and resilience: This section seems to talk about very different things: one is the environmental impact of electricity generation (which should be a section by itself) and the other is resilience, which could be another subsection of the distribution/transmission section suggested in the previous point.
Added greenhouse gas section
Policy and regulation
"The objectives are developing local manufacturing capacity, ..." It is not clear what this sentence refers to, and who is saying this. Is it the government or the researchers?
Clarified
It may be better to split this into subsections "Incentives and subsidies" and "Renewable energy targets".
Economics and finance
As noted elsewhere, it is helpful to organize the content in a coherent flow, and introduce a topic at the beginning. For example, the first sentence "As elsewhere new renewables are auctioned." seems a bit out of nowhere considering that the section is about Economics and finance in general.
The section talks about the Electricity market and liberalization, energy subsidies, international exchange, and energy security. I think most of the material in this section should be moved to the relevant existing section on the topic. This section could be focused on energy security, which is the only topic not covered elsewhere.
Energy security is covered in Energy in Turkey
Future: This section is a bit unfocused. It seems to talk about a single project. On the other hand, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, one of the largest nuclear plants under construction in the world, is never mentioned directly in the article.
Added Akkuyu
Just a comment: the pictures already present are very interesting, it would be nice to add a few more.
Done
Overall the article is concise, up to date, and well referenced. However, it would greatly benefit from a better organization of content (through fewer sections and more subsections), clearer prose, and some expansion of some sections. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ita140188 Thanks for those very useful comments. I will likely take a break for a day or 2 over Xmas but hope to go through them all before the end of the year. Once I  have done that I hope you will read it afresh and say whether it ought to be put in the queue for a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors. If you are celebrating Christmas have a good one. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Ita140188 Happy New Year. Whilst looking through this article I have noticed some contradictions in the figures between infobox, lead and body- for example consumption per person. I suspect this might be to do with some cites being gross and others net, but I have not properly figured it out yet. I think by the time I have documented that I will be too fed up with (and too close to) the article to do a good copyedit - so I think it will be best if you fail it on prose (and maybe mos) and I put it in the queue at GOCE. But now I have added more history, greenhouse gases, pics and a few other small bits like Akkuyu can it pass on broadness? If not please let me know why not so I can add the required info. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: Happy new year! Thank you for your edits. I think the article is comprehensive enough for GA, although I think this is the most difficult thing to evaluate. On the other hand, most of my comments on section organization and prose have not been addressed. Are you planning to work on it further? --Ita140188 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ita140188 I think I need a break from this article. So please fail it on organization and prose and I will put it in the GOCE queue. Hopefully, as the subject is interesting for me, before they get round to copyediting it I will take a fresh look and fix the numerical discrepancies and add some 2020 stats. Thanks again for all your useful work on this - your comments will not be wasted. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the work until now, and let me know if you need any help. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am planning to review this article over the next 7 days.
Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I congratulate the editors for the large amount of work that has already gone into this article. This is a difficult topic to cover.  However, as I have set out below, I do not consider that this article currently meets the GA criteria for prose and coverage. 


### Criteria 1 - well written
The article contains many sections that are densely written - an assembly of short statements (typically statements of fact) with citations. The densely written content of these sections can be difficult to follow because of the lack of context or explanation of the facts presented, and lack of linkages between different ideas. Some examples of sections with this characteristic include:  Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Policy and Regulation. Overall, it is too difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding. Most of these sections need expansion and re-writing for clarity so that the reader can understand the content.  In addition, some of the factual statements presented are now out of date.
The longer sections are somewhat difficult to read because they lack sub-headings that would classify the individual topics within the section.  A good example is Generation - although the topic appears to require expanding as well (see below).
The section: "Health, safety and resilience" brings together topics that are not a natural fit, and this is confusing for the reader. The topic of air pollution from coal fired plants could potentially be better covered as "Environmental impacts" as a subheading under Generation-coal.  
The topic of "resilience" is covered briefly in the section "Health, safety and resilience", but it is not clear.  Power system security is a large topic and would probably require an article on its own to make it broadly understandable.  If government energy policy is seeking a move towards increased resilience at a local level, some content about this topic could be covered to some extent under Energy policy.  If there have already been significant microgrids installed that have capability for islanded operation, this is potentially a sub-topic under Consumption, or Demand forecasting.

 Done Checked and no significant policy or microgrids found - but expanded the section a little. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The section: "Future" is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage.  It would probably be better to split the content and move it all back into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Content in some sections does not clearly fit with the heading. For example, the last paragraph in Consumption contains the sentence: "A group of four academics has suggested that the target of 32% from renewables by 2030 should be increased to at least 50%."  This appears to be about Government policy, not consumption. In another example, the last paragraph of Transmission includes mention of solar power and pumped storage, but without clearly explaining how this is relevant to transmission.


### Criteria 3 - Broad in its coverage
While the article covers many of the topics that would be expected, some important matters are given insufficient or no coverage.  The topic of decarbonisation of the electricity energy supply comes up in several places in the article, but is not clearly explained from a government policy perspective.  It would be easier for the reader to understand the "story" underpinning much of this article, if a section on Energy policy was placed towards the top of the article, and expanded to provide an outline of the long term energy planning stance.

Because energy policy controls more than electricity it is covered in Energy in Turkey, which is currently being reviewed at Talk:Energy in Turkey/GA2. I and I am sure the reviewer Uness232 would appreciate any comments you like to add there. If there should be more links to, or an extract of, that article from this one please advise here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a good point to clarify.  My understanding is that for important topics like this, the article should have enough content to provide the reader with at least a basic introduction to the topic/ sub-topic without having to click the link and read other articles.  This means that in the case of energy policy in Turkey as it affects the electricity sector, there should be a summary of at least a few paragraphs about the main points of energy policy affecting electricity.  If there is a link to the "main" article, then there only needs to be a few citations in the summary, provided that all the points made are backed up appropriately by citations in the "main". Marshelec (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that a suitable overview illustration of the likely future scenarios will be helpful.  This would need a few sentences to put it into context, but I have prepared an illustration from one of the sources you have cited.  Hopefully, you will be able to access the Excel file at this link in OneDrive:  https://1drv.ms/x/s!Aps5Nc0RjrzYgaRCvZx7NIEaOnzQGA?e=67gRpq   If you can't access this, please advise.  If you can, let me know what you think.  To me, this gives the reader a reasonably clear idea about the current outlook, and is easier to understand than lots of narrative and numbers. Marshelec (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that diagrams are usually easier to understand than text. Your diagram look great thanks. But the problem is that the source is from 2020 so although it mentions increased natural gas production I don't think it takes into account the large 2021 Black Sea gas finds, which I am pretty sure will change forecasts. So thanks for your work but I think it is not worth the effort to add it as the forecast is likely already obsolete. Although the source mentions it, in 2021 the EU seems to be firming up on the CBAM - which might make a difference due to the arc furnaces - not sure. In 2021 I just don't find it believable coal generation will still be so much more than gas by 2040 - do you? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, you are the topic expert. My underlying issue was wanting the reader to be able to understand "the story". What is the main outlook for generation in Turkey ? It seems certain that the share of electricity generation from coal will decline significantly over the next decade, as a result of a combination of factors - market forces (energy price competition), environmental (both greenhouse gases and air pollution), cessation/withdrawal of subsidies for fossil fuels, and public opinion/ political considerations. The share of generation from renewable resources has increased markedly over the past 20 years, and this trend is predicted to continue through the next two decades, so that electricity generation in Turkey is forecast to be 50% from renewable resources before 2040. (You will no doubt have better references for the forecast time when the 50% from renewables milestone might be achieved). My view is that (provided you can find reference sources that you think are credible), a statement along these lines is an essential part of the introduction to the generation section, and should also appear in the lead.Marshelec (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done there is no decarbonization policy - added policy section Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Following directly from the point above, the topic of Generation is of great importance to this article, but there is insufficient content about the generation sector as a whole, given its importance. A reasonable expectation would be at least a paragraph or two about each of the main sources of generation. The content about solar generation development is useful, and worthy of a subsection, but is currently out of balance with the rest of the section.  It would help to move the graphic about generation by source  to be alongside the Generation section.  It would be best to avoid vague statements such as: "The state-owned Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ) has about 20% of the market,[66] and there are many private companies".

Working on this - do you think I should move some text from List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey to this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I know it can be difficult to summarise content that is already drafted.  I suggest aiming for the summary to be somewhere around 25-30% of the length of the content of the lead in the List article.  It would provide basic facts about current numbers of operational coal units, total capacity etc, and then briefly state the main issues for coal-fired generation (including over-capacity, high cost of imported coal, local mining of lignite, subsidy of some plants with capacity payments out to 2027, closure of older units because of inability to meet new air pollution (emission) standards, declining competitiveness against renewable energy alternatives, poor economic outlook for coal fired generation, risk of default on loans, and increasing public opposition). It would not be necessary to copy all of the citations across to the "Sector" article, just select a few of the most relevant ones. Marshelec (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah to save effort I was thinking of moving rather than copying or summarizing. The reason I wrote all the text above the list was because I was trying to make it a "featured list". But I gave that up once I realised it could not be automatically kept in step with the list on Turkish Wikipedia. So I am tempted to just move all the freestyle text here (then delete anything out of date) and just link from there. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
In another example, while there is a section on Policy and Regulation, there is no content about the structure of regulation (for example, what are the names and roles of the main regulatory authorities).  
The section on Consumption contains some content about electric vehicle chargers, and electric vehicles.  The topic of the electrification of transport is highly relevant for this article, but there is little development of content on this topic at present.  It also probably fits better with Energy policy and planning and/or Demand forecasting.

It is covered in Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey#Transport which I am reluctant to duplicate. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked at that content, but it was not what I had in mind. There are projections about the number of vehicles and the number of charging stations, but is there any forecast of the impact on electricity consumption ?  That is what is most significant for this article. ON a related point, is there any other significant part of the energy sector where widespread conversion from fossil fuels to electricity is likely in the foreseeable future. For example, is there likely to be any drive to convert from gas as a process heat fuel in industry to electricity ??
Good question - I will  try and find out  Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the TEO 2020 document, on page 145 I noted a forecast of 1 million electric vehicles by 2030, but that there is considerable uncertainty and debate about that forecast. I found the following on page 146: "... even with many more BEVs than can be reasonably expected over our forecast period, the electric consumption of BEV's will remain less than 2% of total annual power demand". I noted comments in the transport section that Turkey has a relatively fuel-efficient light vehicle fleet because of a history of vehicle taxes favouring low capacity engines.  When you consider the "natural lifetime" of existing light vehicles in the fleet, and the difficulties and costs inherent in BEVs and electrification, the likelihood of a significant increase in electricity demand caused by electric vehicles seems to be fairly small in the near term. I also looked briefly at some other sections of the TEO, to try to understand the future scenarios for industrial consumption.  Turkey already has a particularly high proportion of electricity demand going to industry (37% - p 336), so significant changes in that sector could have profound implications. On page 343 I found a forecast that electricity will become the leading fuel type for industry by 2030 (at 30%, compared with 26% now). This may be worth including in the Consumption section. Marshelec (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah well spotted - toned down cars and added vans - added more about industry  Done
The section on Transmission has no basic content about the transmission network - eg approximate system length, transmission voltages in use, number of transmission grid substations. 

 Done
The section on Trade has no significant content about the wholesale electricity market, or any mention of the participants, the regulatory code or participation agreement that sets out the operating rules of the market, or the organisational roles (such as physical operation, clearing and reconciliation, settlement etc). Import/export is covered under Trade, but for clarity should probably be separate, or in a sub-heading.

 Partly done as I did not want to go into excess detail or duplicate info common to many markets which should be in electricity market. If I have missed something important please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no content about how retailing of electricity is conducted or retail pricing structured.  For instance, is the distribution lines service provider also a monopoly electrical energy provider in their operating region, or is there retail competition (ie wires and energy unbundled), with a variety of energy traders operating over the transmission and distribution networks ?

Yes they are all monopolies as mentioned in "distribution" so if I split off a separate "retailing" section it would likely to be too short - but I can if you think that would be better. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
If lines and energy is "unbundled" and household consumers can choose to switch between different retail energy suppliers, then this is a significant fact on its own, and is worth including in the article. Since every household connected to the network must deal with an electricity supplier, the topic of electricity retailing and pricing seems worth of coverage. If you can get data on average household consumption and pricing that seems like useful content for the encyclopedia. I decided to create some draft content for electricity retailing in New Zealand that I will ultimately incorporate into Electricity sector in New Zealand. Perhaps this might help you to consider content that would be relevant for Turkey, depending on the availability of data sources. My example is still a draft in work, but see what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marshelec/sandbox#Retail_and_residential_supply Marshelec (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done Although your writing was good I could not find that data for Turkey. Created a retail section. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


### On hold
At this stage, I will put further review on hold pending feedback, and will follow up in around 7 days.
Marshelec (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those very useful comments. In case changes due to the section 3 comments affect section 1 it seems best to sort section 3 out first before considering section 1 if you agree. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
One possible approach from here is that I am willing to work with you on section-by-section review and improvement. Quite a lot of work may be required, but we could do this at your pace, over several months if you wish. As a point of reference, it may be useful to look at this Good Article about an electricity industry topic:  Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system. This shows the quality of prose and coverage that I understand is required at Good Article standard. Note that I intend to undertake a major review and updating of the comparable article Electricity sector in New Zealand.  The New Zealand article doesn't deserve its B grade classification anymore because it is quite out of date. Working on improvements for the article about Electricity sector in Turkey will be thought-provoking and will help me with the review of the New Zealand article.  Let me know if you are interested in this offer.  If so, it may be best to fail the article as it stands now, and we can get on with step-by-step improvements as your time allows. Marshelec (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmm tempting - let's keep it on hold and see how it goes over the next few days before deciding. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The GA review process has been underway for 9 days.  During that time, the nominator has made significant improvements to coverage of multiple topics including: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Retailing. However, at this point, substantial issues remain, related to coverage and prose, but there are also some relatively minor issues with selection of images.


### Criteria 3: Coverage - Summary style article
One significant issue for this GA review is the need for summary content where there is a "main" article linked. Here are some references, benchmarks and comments on this topic.
There is useful guidance about summary-style articles at WP:SUMMARY. It is also covered in WP:BETTER. The guidance indicates that the parent article should contain a section with a summary of the child article (as well as the link), and that there may be close similarity between the summary in the parent article and the lead in the sub-topic or child article.  The criteria for Good Articles at WP:GA? does not cover summary style specifically, but the general assessment quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment lists the article Discovery of the neutron as a GA quality benchmark.  This article shows the provision of significant summary content where there is a parent-child relationship with other articles.  Another useful benchmark from the electricity sector is a GA-class article Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system that also shows the provision of summary content where there is a parent-child article relationship.
The current status of this article under review is that most instances of parent-child relationships do not include summary content.  This particularly affects the Generation section and its sub-headings.  The consequences are that the reader learns little about the generation sub-topic from the article as it stands.  These generation types are highly important topics for this article, with profound implications for the electricity sector in Turkey. These topics require coverage at a summary level. Examples that require a summary of the sub-topic include the section: Hydro (where there is no content about installed capacity or overall significance and issues of hydro-electric generation, although there is content on these topics in the child article). The section about Gas does not have a summary of content about the gas-generation sector, such as installed capacity, issues, or explain whether the gas fuel is imported or domestically sourced. Note: It may also be appropriate to include in this summary, a mention of the recent find of gas in the Black Sea. [1] Another example without a summary is the section: Nuclear (where the existing content does not mention that the first nuclear generating facility in Turkey is to be commissioned in 2023).
The GA review process is to grade the quality of a single nominated article, not an interconnected web of related articles. Without summary content where a parent-child article link is provided, there is insufficient coverage in the parent article as it stands to meet the GA review criteria- Broad in its coverage, (provided that the sub-topic is clearly important to the subject of the article - and this is definitely the case for the generation sub-topics).


### Criteria 1 - well-written
The article currently has multiple sections that are hard to follow because they are densely-written with little or no linkages of ideas between short factual statements in a single paragraph.  
One particular example is the section: "Future".  This section is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. A suggestion for this section is to split the content and move it all back and merge it into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Another example is: "Economics and Finance".  This is hard to follow because it covers a multitude of topics with minimal linkage of ideas. Some of the content appears to duplicate other sections. Again, this section may benefit from having all or most of the content relocated and merged into relevant sections elsewhere.
There is duplication between section 2:Policy, and section 11 Policy and regulation.  These two sections should be revised and merged.
Overall, there is a need for review and improvement of readability throughout.


### Illustrations
There would be benefit in reviewing the selection of images.  GA review criteria requires that they are relevant.  Guidance for relevance of images is given here: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.  The key requirement is: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". The historic images in the article at present would be of relevance to an article specifically about the history of the electricity sector in Turkey, but are of marginal relevance for this article.  Additional images would be worthwhile. The only power station image in the article at present is for a solar tower station.  There are no  images of other generation plants, or images relating to transmission, distribution or end use.  The image of the driverless vehicle seems far more relevant to transport than to electricity.


### Next steps
At this stage, there are several options for next steps:

request a second opinion via the GA review process page, to see if a different editor has a significantly different perspective from what I have outlined above
keep the review on hold, while further improvements are made in an incremental manner
fail the article now.  Note: In that event, I confirm my offer to work co-operatively with the nominator outside of this GA review process on a thorough section-by-section review, subject to our availability. I would undertake to attempt some creation of fresh content (such as summary content) and other editing myself, not just critiques.
I seek feedback on the next steps.Marshelec (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

option 3 please Chidgk1 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


### Failing the article
Marshelec (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.shura.org.tr/sector_coupling_for_grid_integration_of_wind_and_solar/
https://www.shura.org.tr/socioeconomic_impact_of_the_power_system_transition_in_turkey/

Marshelec or anyone. I am pondering making the generation subsections extracts from the leads of their detailed articles. The only source which does not have a detailed article at the moment is gas but with the recent Black Sea discovery I am thinking of starting an article Natural gas in Turkey analogous to Natural gas in the United States - so in that case the extract would be of a section rather than the lead. One advantage of using extracts would be to avoid duplicating text which would likely need updating at least annually. Can you see any disadvantages which would outweigh the advantages? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1  My suggestion is to draft the summary content for each generation sector in the main article so that it describes the most significant characteristics of that sector (probably as seen from an international perspective), but with content selected so that it will not require regular updating, and with few statistics. Ideally, all such statistics should be supported with citations - ie not relying on the reader to find the information in the subordinate article and then find the citation.Marshelec (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Marshelec or anyone. Can you see anything which is wrong or missing about the technology? I am thinking particularly of the "transmission" and "distribution" subsections. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have expanded the content about Distribution.  More could be usefully added, but it is difficult to find good sources. Ideally, I would like to find a recently published overall review of the entire distribution sector. Perhaps ERMA has published something along these lines? I will see what I can discover. I will move on to Transmission after that, but suspect that shortage of suitable sources could again be a constraint.Marshelec (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much - while remaining "summary style" what are the most important things you think are missing from the "distribution" section? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Distribution is easy to overlook compared with generation and transmission, but it makes a significant contribution to delivered cost of energy, and has a major influence on service quality for the average consumer.  It is worthwhile to expand the content in this section if suitable references can be found (although I suspect references may be hard to find). Here are a few ideas:
What % of delivered energy cost is represented by distribution ?  See NZ data here (I must include this reference in the NZ article): [2]
What service quality information is published ? (In NZ there is mandatory disclosure of a wide range of performance metrics)
Is there any published benchmarking of service quality performance ?
What sanctions are there for poor performance by distributors ?
What incentives are in place to reduce technical and non-technical losses ?
Who owns the meters at the consumer premises, and who manages metering data ?
Is there any distribution industry association that represents the sector ? If so, does it publish anything useful (this would typically be advocacy and would have to be treated with care, but still might be interesting).
Has there been significant news coverage of incidents or problems in electricity distribution that have national significance ?
I also propose to relocate content about wiring and plugs from the Retailing section, into a "Low voltage supply" sub-section of Distribution.Marshelec (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.pwc.com.tr/overview-of-the-turkish-electricity-market
https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20211103-20111678.pdf

I have created an illustration that may be useful in the History section of this article.  It still needs tidying up, and I need to work out how to crop the background. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unbundling_of_the_electricity_sector_in_Turkey.svg   Comments please. Marshelec (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed format problems and cropped. Comments welcome. Marshelec (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Nice diagram. Would it be too difficult to add that EÜAŞ took over TETAŞ in 2018 (see diag page 8 of report linked above)? Perhaps it could be done by showing the ones that no longer exist in a much lighter shade? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have amended to make it closer to the one in the source you referenced, and removed the title, given that there will be a caption when it is included in an article. If you think this is adequate, I will draft a paragraph of narrative to go in the History section alongside the diagram.  It is easy to change, so feel free to make any suggestions.  This has been a useful exercise for me in learning more about Inkscape. I am working on how to get the special characters that are really needed here.  Which is the correct unicode for the capital U ?  See this List of Unicode characters. Can you confirm please ? Marshelec (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
U is 85 and Ü is 220 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the latest version now has the required special characters, but please check.  It was good to learn how to do this. :)  I will now draft some brief content to accompany this illustration in the History section.  However, feedback on the diagram is still welcome.  When TEIAŞ is privatised, I could add another row to the diagram.Marshelec (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC), Styyx (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Experience from previous reviews has shown me that some people hate this review table, i.e. it can make responses harder.  I just find it keeps the review logical on my end.  Please feel free to answer within the table, or below the table and refer to the item, e.g. 1a.1 - I will number all my comments to allow for this referencing.
At this point I need to raise a major concern about the use of {{excerpts}}.  There are a lot of sections based on other articles, only one of which is a GA.  I can't find a policy or guideline on this, but surely the text could and should be brought into this article so it is stable and the qualiy of the article can be monitored and maintained?  To be honest if you disagree I'm minded to move to a QF or invite you to seek a second opinion on this point. Can you give me your thoughts on this please? Mark83 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I guessed you might comment on this. I hope to submit all the excerpted articles (except maybe bioenergy) for GA when ready - if I submit them now could you informally review just the leads? Problem is that without using excerpts there will be loads of duplication to keep up to date. If that is not possible then I will take them out except from the GA one (thus they will be duplicate text but I wrote most of it anyway) and put them back in when the other articles are GA. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the text needs to be moved over.  I don't see "loads of duplication to keep up to date" and even if there is, it's a small price to pay to get this passed as a GA.  See a response to my query here about attribution [3].  This would tidy up the article too, it looks messy with so main 'main' and 'excerpt' templates.Mark83 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK I removed all the excerpts (except coal power which was recently promoted GA itself) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I really, really, really do not like excerpts, even one.  Fair enough it's from a GA - but I have just wasted time trying to figure out why I couldn't find the caption for an image to copy into the review below.  It's because the image is elsewhere.  As I said above, the maintainence argument isn't good enough for the problems it causes - particularly for editors not familiar with the excerpt template and usage.  And visually it makes the formatting awful.  The Coal section is just a sea of links. Mark83 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
At the moment I think no one else but me is interested in doing much maintenance on these articles (thank you so much to Marshelec for improving them so much but I am sure you would rather be out cycling - enjoy). Of course it would be great if others pile in but I think it is their lack of interest in the subject rather than the excerpt which is putting them off. I have reduced the blueness considerably and am happy to consider any other improvements you suggest for Coal power in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


### Comments from User:Marshelec
I have followed the progess of this article since being a previous GA reviewer.  Great progress has been made, and I think that GA status is now within reach.  Here are my main suggestions for tightening up the content:

reconcile and merge the contents of the sections Policy,  and Policy and regulation
Merged - will reconcile the contents on general read through shortly Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
relocate worthwhile content from the Smart Grid section into other sections and then delete (Smart Grid is a useless buzzword in my view, and not helped by a rambling and overlong article Smart grid).  I don't see a need for a Smart Grid section in this article, when the most important topics can be covered under other relevant headings.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
delete the section on Resilience.  See my detailed comments on this here: User_talk:Marshelec#Electricity_sector_in_Turkey_-_resilience_section
Have amended but reluctant to completely delete as seems an important aspect - discussion moved to Talk:Electricity_sector_in_Turkey#Resilience_section in case you have more comments on resilience or others have thoughts on this Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
transfer the useful content from the "Future" section into other relevant sections.  It does not seem appropriate to have "Future" as a section heading - it will get outdated too quickly, and there is already future-focussed content in other sections. Marshelec (talk)
07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Consumption section

There is probably benefit in inserting a sub-section on Electrification of transport.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence beginning:"The architecture of Turkey.. " should be moved immediately adjacent to other content about electric vehicles.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph beginng: "In 2021, there is a lot of excess generation capacity;[19] but from 2017 through 2019 less than 1% was exported.."  is a bit unclear, but seems to be mostly about cross-border trade in electricity (ie export).  Any exported energy appears as increased consumption.  However, it may be best to make this clear by creating a further sub-section: Export, and discussing this further.  It might also be appropriate to relocate some content about export, from the Trade section.
Moved part of the para to trade section. But sorry I don't understand what you mean "Any exported energy appears as increased consumption." Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence beginning: "When the lira falls bilateral contracts are sometimes unable to compete .." seems to be in the wrong place - it is not clearly about consumption. Also, two typos need fixing in that sentence. Marshelec (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Moved to trade section Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Generation section

The first sentence in this section comes from the cited source but something is wrong, or the 2021 year was really abnormal.  The numbers conflict with what is stated elsewhere (eg about the proprtion coming from coal), and don't line up with the graphic alongside (albeit that it finishes in 2020).  This is confusing for the reader, and needs clarification.
Thanks - have amended coal sentence. 2021 was abnormal due to drought (but drought may become the new normal) but I have not updated the graphic yet because (despite a lot of searching) I have not been able to find official figures so am not sure they have been published for 2021 yet. Although I think Ember (non-profit organisation) is a reliable source their report has lumped together wind and solar whereas I would like to keep them separate on the graphic. It may be that they have added up a lot of monthly figures, so if nothing comes out officially in the next few weeks I may try and do that too. Alternatively I could subtract the Hürriyet reported 10% wind from the Ember reported % for wind and solar. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that the sentence about the virtual power plant doesn't warrant being included in this section "header".  It may be best to relocate to a new sub-section for Distributed energy resources or similar
Moved - if you can improve new subsection feel free Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence including "..target of 32% from renewables by 2030 .."  is ok, but for consistency and for its critical importance, I recommend adding a sentence about the suggested timeframe for phase-out of coal.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence beginning: "Distributed generation over 11KW can be connected.." could be relocated to the proposed new sub-section on Distributed energy resources.  Also it should be 11 kW. Marshelec (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Geothermal section

The sentence: "The country's theoretical geothermal potential is 60 GW[79] and potential is 4.5 GW." contains a vast range of "potential", and this needs clarification because it is confusing as it stands. (The sentence comes from the lead in the article Geothermal power in Turkey, so it need amendment in that article as well.  The sentence should also be moved towards the end of this section to be adjacent to other content about future prospects. The final sentence could then be rationalised to reduce the duplication of the existing 2 GW installed capacity
The sentence: "As well as the electricity sector in Turkey, geothermal heat is used directly" could be usefully expanded as: "As well as contributing to electricity generation, geothermal energy is also used in direct heating applications."Marshelec (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Tweaked the section a bit and replaced old cites with a more official one. By the way if you are interested I have nominated Hydroelectricity in Turkey and Solar power in Turkey for GA. If you don't have time to do a full review perhaps you could add short comments on their talk pages Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Mark83 So you are looking for quick replies for the backlog competition in order to finish before the end of month? Or it makes no difference? Anyway I will hopefully be able to respond quickly. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi.  No, that's irrelevant.  It would be in appropriate for me to either rush the review or push you for replies faster than would ordinarily be the case.  Mark83 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mark83 I hope you are well. Thank you for your really useful comments. Are you able to complete this review? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


#### Second opinion by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Hello both the reviewer and nominator of the article, I would lay down some of my thoughts about the article below. Do take note that some may be a bit off from the GA criteria.

I think there is a huge gaps of content missing, such as effect on human health, plans for expansion, and toss in some politics as well while we are at it. This article should have good sectioning, as other articles of this kind would based on this one for reference.
Re health as that is almost all to do with coal it is covered in detail at Coal_in_Turkey#Health_and_safety Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Re plans for expansion I think the Russians are still our friends so won't abandon construction of the nuclear plant - hoping for more wind and solar auction announcements - anyway if more info comes out on plans for expansion I will definitely add Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Re politics there is some more in the detailed articles such as Coal_in_Turkey#Politics - but if more comes out on electricity generally (if so it will probably be about pricing) I will add Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Re sections I agree it would be nice to be a model for other "Electricity sector in X" articles and am open to suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I don't really have huge concerns about sourcing, although archiving the citations at User:IABot can be handy.
Thanks for archiving - don't know much about this - if I should set up something regular let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Listing some of the most notable plants would make the article better. For example, in the "Hydro" section, you should list the Atatürk Dam, Karakaya Dam, etc.
NOTE TO SELF - DO THIS Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Using excerpt is a temporarily solution in my opinion. A better way to tackle with summarizing the contents of a sub-article is to rewrite it completely, and then paste that rewrite back to the lead of the sub-article.
Yes I have done that sometimes - will see what new reviewer thinks about excerpts Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally, a better image that represent the electricity sector is either: a chart showing the percentage of each sector, or a huge and well-known power plant.
Ah you mean the image that appears at the beginning on mobile phones. I disagree as nowadays transmission is more important than generation I think. But if a particular generation method starts getting expanded rapidly I might change it. Hey if anyone is reading this from Togg please please put a pic on Wikimedia Commons. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
"History" section should be placed at the beginning
Again I disagree as I suspect most readers will be more interested in the current situation - but if the new reviewer feels strongly I will move it. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Feel free, but keep in mind this will set a precedent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
General comment: Definitely good, but in my opinion the article is still falls short of GA. It is missing criterion 3a, which is the easiest to achieve out of all :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Chidgk1 Here are my comments. As a second opinion, I would decide whether the article met GA or not in order to not waste time. (seen way too much abandoned GAN) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


### Review by Styyx
Hello! I've decided to pick this up. This is my first GA review, so make sure to slam dunk any complaints here or on my talk page in case I mess up. :)
I'd prefer not having too many excerpts. Coal power in Turkey is a GA itself, so I don't have any problem with this one. Having Wind power in Turkey in addition isn't a huge problem since there are no policies/guidelines/criterias regarding the usage of excerpts.

Lead
There probably is a good explanation for this, but I was wondering why there are sources in the lead. Since the lead is pretty much a summary, MOS:LEADCITE says that challengeable things and BLP related material should be sourced, but I don't see either applying here.
So that if it passes to GA the lead might be excerpted elsewhere for example Energy in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
History
I have mixed feelings about this section being at the very end, but the reasoning above seems, eh. The respective MoS doesn't say anything about this, so I guess it's not a problem.
This section has a lot of potential to be expanded: I feel that it's missing something with covering 100 years in just four paragraphs. I have some sources below, and their main points translated into English:
Arslan, Ozan (2017). "Tarsus elektrik altyapısı tarihine bir bakış (1906–1938)". Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: url-status (link)
This is mostly about the city of Tarsus alone, but the beginning includes some history too. Page 3 says that in 1875, a French firm got the tenure to install electric street lamps in several Turkish cities (all listed), but "no progress was made." In 1899 they started giving the tenures to different firms. The page also lists in what year some Turkish cities got the electric tenure (1910 to 1920). In 1914, Istanbul started producing electric with a steam driven station (page 4). Also lists which cities got a diesel-powered stations throughout 1925 and 1933. Page 5 and beyond is about the Tarsus power plant itself.
Yurtoğlu, Nadir (2017). "Cumhuriyet Türkiyesinde elektrik enerjisi üretimi ve enerji politikası (1923–1960)" (PDF). Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: url-status (link)
The 19th government of Turkey led by DP started supporting the national and privatization of electricity production (page 240, need to type 14 above). According to page 243, only Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir etc. got electricity throughout the day in the 1950s, with most others having only from sunset to 10-11 in the evening.
Erol, Emine (2007). "Türkiye'de elektrik enerjisinin tarihi gelişimi: 1902–2000" (PDF). Istanbul University.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: url-status (link)
This is a thesis, so should be treated with care. Page 72–73 explains that the above tenures were mostly given to "foreigners" because of the lack of personnel and funding, and cites another offline source which I do not have access to. Page 77 states that between 1938 and 1944, the government bought some of the tenures back due to some firms violating their contracts. By 1950, 23% of the Turkish population has access to electricity (page 82, this fact is already in the article).
Great I used all of those to expand the section - interesting stuff. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources
Looking at the sources, all seem reliable to me. I had some doubts about AnterHaber (Ref 48), but the author is also a journalist for DHA [4], which would make this reliable.
Nothing significant, but Ref 66 has Yeni Şafak misspelled as Yeni Şafaf.
removed yeni şafak as already cited iea which is better source Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This is what I've got for now. Pretty close,  GAN on hold. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Styyx Hope I have covered it all now but if I missed anything or you have any other points please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Chidgk1 The additions look really good! I can find anything on the 60s. Page 89 of thesis above says that there was no significant progress in the electricity sector from 1960 to 1963 due to the 1960 Turkish coup d'état, I don't know if that's something you may want to add. Also pinging Mark83, Marshelec and CactiStaccingCrane to see if they have any further comments. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Styyx Thanks for quick reply. As we already mentioned "no progress" for the 19th century I think it would be a bit boring for the reader to say it again for another time. And I don't think the history section has to mention every decade, as there have been a lot since 1902. Also there is more history in generating source articles such as Hydroelectricity_in_Turkey#History. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 Oki, that's a  pass! Make sure to nominate an interesting fact from the article for DYK. :) ~StyyxTalk? 11:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well, you did a good job! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - the subject was a lot more complicated than I first thought! Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(below suggestions by Marshelec copied from User_talk:Marshelec#Electricity_sector_in_Turkey_-_resilience_section so others can easily comment if they wish
begin comment----------
The topic of resilience in electricity systems is multi-faceted, and is a challenge to describe briefly in an encyclopaedia. It is also likely to be difficult to find good sources to cite. Looking at the present content of this section, I think it would probably be best to delete it.  I have added my comments in italics into a copy of the text in the Resilience section as it stands.
Earthquakes in Turkey are common and sometimes cut transmission lines and destroy substations.[148] After purchasing a property in an urban area earthquake insurance is compulsory before the electricity and other utilities are connected.[149] This is really about resilience of property owners, not the electricity sector.  Because many of the trapped people rescued from rubble are located via their phones household earthquake preparedness includes keeping phones well charged and keeping plenty of batteries in the house.[150] This again is about civil defence preparedness, not the electricity sector.
In case of emergencies, distribution grids can be remotely controlled by SCADA.[151] Distribution grids are routinely controlled via SCADA.  The source actually describes a mobile "command centre" that can be taken into an area following major disruption, to assist with recovery and restoration. It seems that it is intended to cover for the total loss of a major SCADA control centre.  New Zealand has two national control centres in different locations, each of which can almost instantly take control of the entire grid if the other has to be evacuated or fails. Real resilience goes far beyond control centres.  System resilience is designed in to the netwrok and its equipment.  It includes appropriate seismic withstand (and other appropriate limit-state design criteria and protections), design levels of backup/redundancy, duplication, diverse comms routes, timely access to skilled people, equipment, spares, machinery. The installation of more local solar power with batteries and microgrids in vulnerable places might help vital buildings such as hospitals retain power after a natural disaster such as earthquake or flood. Academics suggest that cost–benefit analysis of such emergency power systems should take into account any benefits of resilience and also the cost of installing an islandable system.[152][153]I don't think this article needs to cover the topic of emergency power supplies.
The nationwide blackout in 2015 did not greatly affect Van Province as it was supplied from Iran,[154] the EU interconnection helped restore power,[155] and more integration with other countries would increase resilience.[156] This sentence could be relocated into the Transmission section.
end comment-----------

Marshelec Thanks for those very useful comments. I have made some changes but am reluctant to delete the section altogether. Having the section heading there might encourage others to add more info in future - for example if an Istanbul earthquake plan was to include more info on electricity Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Chidgk1 I agree that Resilience is a valid topic for articles about the electricity sectors of countries.  However, it is not clear that there are currently sufficient sources about the resilience of the electricity sector in Turkey to meet quality expectations for this article at the GA level.  To provide a bit more background, here is a link to recent substantive paper from the leading international learned society IET, setting out the current state of thinking about Resilience in power systems. [5]  You will see from this paper that the topic is very broad, and that there are still differences in definitions and understandings in different international jurisdictions.  Here is an interesting quote from section 5.2 of the document:
There is no agreed standard or design criteria that utilities and government should work together to enhance power systems resilience during catastrophic outages. Likewise, there is no common agreement on the level of resilience to lessen the impact of large-scale outages. Without consistent design standards, it is difficult for utility operators to build a system with a realistic and sensible level of resilience. Therefore, the design basis from the government is necessary that can provide the framework needed for investments to meet enhanced design criteria and preparedness standards. It should provide economic justification for hardening investments to receive regulatory approval and should serve as a basis to develop appropriate incentives.
As with Turkey, in New Zealand one important aspect of electricity system resilience is seismic withstand. There is a common AS/NZ standard AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural design actions. [6] This standard is focussed on structures, but it has been applied to electricity network assets. It sets out criteria for assessing the “importance level” of an asset, based (broadly) on consequences of failure, and the required role following a disaster.  So a major regional hospital would be Importance level 4, but smaller local medical facility might be Importance level 2.  The standard sets different performance expectations based on the Importance level, to guide the structural designer. For Importance level 4 (this would be assigned to major grid substations), there should be no significant loss of operational capability for events up to a 500 year return period severity, prompt recovery and restoration of service for events with a 1000 year return period severity, and collapse limit (ie total destructive failure) should be at events with a 2500 year return period or beyond.
If good sources specifically relevant to resilience of Turkey’s electricity sector are available, then the Resilience section can be retained.  Otherwise, I suggest it is best left out at this stage.  I remain of the view that emergency power systems that individual enterprises may choose to put in place to protect critical loads are probably out of scope for this article, unless perhaps there is some national standard or mandate requiring these to be provided for certain kinds of end-use applications, as a part of wider public policy to help ensure community resilience..Marshelec (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Mark83 and anyone else - I very much doubt there are better sources on resilience here  - do you have an opinion? should the section be deleted? if so should the text be moved elsewhere or deleted? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone understand why the light grey band for "imported coal" at https://ytbsbilgi.teias.gov.tr/ytbsbilgi/frm_istatistikler.jsf stays almost constant?
Because we can see from https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/piyasalar/gop/ptf.xhtml that the price is usually less in the small hours of the morning so why don't they ramp down around midnight and back up again around 6 a.m.? Several big plants were built in the 2010s and so don't receive capacity payments. And presumably being new they would be capable of ramping. For example if we look at Cenal at https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/uretim/gerceklesen-uretim/gercek-zamanli-uretim.xhtml it has run constantly so far this month. 
I understand gas is expensive now but if we look back to a day in 2020 it is still flat.
Anyone any idea why?
Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts about new topics that could possibly be included in the article, if suitable sources are available:


### Quality of service
Are there any regularly published reports about quality of service (eg using measures such as SAIDI and SAIFI), or any other customer service indicators ? Regulators may set mandatory disclosure requirements for distribution businesses to make this information public. Many sources cover electricity generation supply security, but it would add to the article if some information about quality of supply at the distribution level is available.

Aha I had never heard of those before so thanks for giving me useful search terms. One appears in a 2019 report but not in the 2020 report - perhaps some keen engineer was ticked off by a manager after the report was published and told not to embarrass TEDAŞ again! Anyway I will include the Turkish term in the article so future editors can search again. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


### Remote area power supplies
Turkey is a large country and presumably has some areas that are sparsely populated and a great distance from the main electricity networks.  In some countries, stand-alone power systems are used in these situations, either because the remote area has never been connected to the grid, or alternatively, that the costs of renewal of very long distribution infrastructure serving a remote region are so great that stand-alone power systems are an economical alternative (and may possibly also bring reliability benefits).  Are there any sources about notable instances (or controversies) concerning remote areas and the provision of stand-alone power systems in Turkey?  Marshelec (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is no as far as I know. I know from experience that at least one village is disconnected in winter in case lines are brought down by winter weather, because in the past villagers used to move with their animals to lower pasture in winter. But I doubt this is widespread nowadays (and I don't have a source) so I don't think worth mentioning. It is quite surprising how the grid gets to even very remote areas. Not sure why there was not more local small hydro in the early 20th century (perhaps due to the central govt wanting to keep central control and not allow either physical or political local power), but I suppose the grid was everywhere before wind and solar microgrids became viable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I note the following comment in a (possibly self-serving) news release by the association of electricity distributors:  "In the past year, natural gas prices have increased up to 10 times, and imported coal prices have increased up to five times on a foreign currency basis." (HA/VK)" [7].  If this claim is supportable with other sources, it is highly material to this article and worth including, because it speaks directly to the urgent need for Turkey to become more self-sufficient in generation and less dependent upon imported fuel. It is also relevant to the increasing competitiveness of generation from wind and solar.  On the other hand, it may have the less desirable effect of further increasing the government support for lignite fueled generation.Marshelec (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not certain but I suspect they are comparing with the incredibly low fuel prices when demand was hit by covid. The bit about imported coal prices sounds like misleading information because however low the imported coal price used to be the govt added taxes to bring it up to a floor price - so no way is it 5 times the floor price. Still I will think about adding a sentence or 2 about price volatility. Because if I understand right any solar and wind built this year and in future are fixed price in local currency to the electricity buyers for at least 10 years. Also I need to check whether hybrid solar/battery and wind/battery are also fixed in lira. Whereas gas and imported coal prices will presumably continue to fluctuate. And nuclear being fixed in USD will fluctuate in lira.
I guess the experts don't know what will happen with the lignite power price in the future. I suppose it will be hard for EU bureaucrats to work out the details of the carbon border tax. Perhaps they will just tax electricity imports by Turkey's average carbon emissions. Or perhaps (for example) Bulgarian Energy Holding would do some bilateral deal to buy only renewable power from Turkey once they close their own coal power plants. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah interesting - I just read that Bulgarian peak demand is in winter https://bnr.bg/en/post/101599441/bulgaria-will-propose-that-coal-fired-power-stations-function-at-times-of-highest-consumption-in-winter-environment-minister?page_1_4=1 whereas ours is in summer. Surely some good trading opportunities to sell our wind power and buy their nuclear Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

F means "fiyat" (price) so A and O must be Turkish words
https://www.epias.com.tr/en/spot-electricity-market Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1 The price in the link you've sent above matches with the prices here, so I guess it's GİP Ağırlıklı Ortalama Fiyat. Have no idea what that means though. xD ~StyyxTalk? 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent that was the clue I needed to complete footnote b with this cite

Hello @Barny22: - where did you get that percentage from please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/turkiye-electricity-review-2023/
https://www.pwc.com.tr/tr/sektorler/enerji/overview-of-turkish-electricity-market-2023.pdf
Also when updating check shura for any new english reports