Talk:Thermal power station

message: reference 4 is not appropriate to this article I believe.  It links to a discussion of gas turbines and their efficiency, which are basically giant jet engines for the combustion of fossil fuels.  the section in question is discussing steam turbines and the efficiency of a steam plant, which is not related to gas turbine efficiency in any way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.225.2 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

message: How can I send you the the Doc that I have sent to User:Mbeychok?
--Dore chakravarty 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Word doc 

message: I propose to merge GRES into this article. 
Rationale: By its nature, it is a typical thermal power plant. Having specific name in specific country is not a reason to create separate article. It could be case if GRES is really smth else than just a thermal power station (e.g. specific technical solution). So far, this is not a case. Beagel (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Beagel. If you will look at :Category:Power stations by country, there are dozen upon dozens of power stations listed (many of them Thermal Power Stations). If GRES is merged into here, then why not all the others? And that would make a total mess of this article, would it not? Regards, mbeychok (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Mbeychok. Nice to see you back. GRES in this article is not a single power station, it is used as a Russian acronym for the thermal power station. I don't have any problem with articles about a single power station (we have several having GRES in their name like Konakovskaya GRES), but in this context I don't think it is reasonable to create an article only because in some country different acronym is in use for the same thing. If this article would be about the history of thermal power stations in the Soviet Union or listing current thermal power stations in Russia, I don't have anything against this, but in this it should be renamed to have more precise title.Beagel (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I should have looked at GRES and I did not. I just assumed it was Ekibastuz GRES-1. Now that I have looked at GRES, I agree with you that it should be merged into this article. mbeychok (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: What is exactly specific in the Soviet Union and Russia, which is different from typical thermal power station? Beagel (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the subject of other article has changed, I withdrawn the merger proposal. Beagel (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal (GRES) 

message: From a derivative the existing coal-fired power plant picture called :File:PowerStation2.svg, I have made a new diagram of a generalized Steam-driven electric power plant called :File:Steam-electric power plant.PNG.  See it below:
center
The same coal-fired plant image presently in this article is also in the Fossil-fuel power plant article.  I am considering replacing the existing coal-fired picture in the Thermal power station article with the generalized :File:Steam-electric power plant.PNG, I just made and showed above.  First I'll ask if anybody has any objections.  H Padleckas (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not keep the file format as SVG, rather than change to PNG, which is deprecated for diagrams? —BillC talk 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea.  I have not yet uploaded the software I need to make these changes to your *.svg image, :File:PowerStation2.svg.  I think it will take me a while to figure out how to do all that.  I must admit that I have worked on another *.png version which is a derivative of your :File:PowerStation2.svg picture.  It would simply be a replacement image for :File:PowerStation2.svg or a suggested example/guide on how to clarify some items in the :File:PowerStation2.svg picture.  I will try to upload it some day.  As in the above :File:Steam-electric power plant.PNG picture, I will label Item 7a as "Condensate pump" and 7b as "Boiler Feedwater pump."  H Padleckas (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam-electric power plant diagram 

message: I propose merging Fossil fuel power station into this article as there is a significant overlapping. Although thermal power stations is a wider term, most of the fossil fuel power stations are thermal power stations. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (fossil fuel power station)

message: Same content, two titles. And that one is ripped from Citizendium - is it even legal to use that content here? Suggest merge of anything usable from that article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Conventional coal-fired power plant]] 

message: These paragraphs need work because:
(i) The water circulation is described in different places as driven by pumps and by natural convection (i.e. water in downcomers pushes steam/water mixture up water walls in furnace)
(ii) A single set of values (much too high) for saturated steam temperature and pressure is quoted.
(iii) Burners are stated in different places as being placed at the four corners of the furnace and on one or both of the front and back walls.
(I'd do the edits myself but I'm totally fed-up with uninformed reverts. This post is it, AFAIC.)
86.3.108.41 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiler construction and operation 

message: It's a small point. The section on "Transport of coal fuel to site and to storage" had a contradiction. It said the coal was crushed to "¾in (6mm)" size. I didn't know which was correct so I chose the ¾in number and used a convert template. The "Fuel processing" section of Fossil-fuel power station says 50mm. These numbers are all approximate so I suppose it doesn't matter too much. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulverized coal size 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:PowerStation2.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 22, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:PowerStation2.svg]]

message: Some sections include nuclear (which seems correct) but others seem only to consider fossil fuel. Should we move fossil-fuel detail to Fossil fuel power plant ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent inclusion of nuclear energy