Talk:Kingsnorth power station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Future power plant tag

That is one ugly tag. There is nothing speculative in those three sentences. When can I remove it?- Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critics of Greenpeace?

Should that sentence be in there at all? It's not to do with Kingsnorth specifically, and saying Gas is a move towards a low-carbon economy doesn't really make sense. I've been bold and removed it, but feel free to correct me.--PhilMacD (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism from Greenpeace

Whilst Greenpeace may have made stated their argument, should it be repeated her unless either their facts can be verified or unless there is space for a counter argument. Can there case be verified or should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.247.179 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Greenpeace is case is a matter of their own opinion. The only question is notability. If the opinions of Greenpeace are noteworthy, it should stay. If they are irrelevant, it should go. Whether Greenpeace are correct or not is beside the point. Indeed, if their argument was verifiable, we would not bother attributing such views to Greenpeace. We would simply state them as a fact.
I will go on to say that the contributions regarding the effect of the Large Plant Combustion Directive added by the poster, at 79.68.247.179, probably constitute orginal research, see Wikipedia:No original research. The claim that the directive 'will result in the closure of 12.7GW of coal and oil power stations by 2015' constitues 'unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position'. Again, whether it is correct or incorrect is beside the point. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Taking your comment on original research, how about this for a link on the LCPD http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file41999.pdf - it list the plants to go and their sizes in table 4.1.